Harrison Butker graduation speech
 

LOL you can't make this stuff up. The opportunities for puns abound too (Swift kick?).

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/16/sport...cec/index.html

Good for him for standing up for normal folks with normal values.
It's always amazing to me that the "we accept all" progressive left gets so triggered when normal folks are brave enough to speak of their values.

So normal people think a woman's place is in the home? I'm far from woke or left wing, but come on, man.

And there was this.

• In a swipe at LGBTQ communities, Butker encouraged graduates to have Catholic pride, but “not the deadly sin sort of pride that has an entire month dedicated to it.”

Normal folks with normal values.

There's many people, both men and women who desire a lifestyle where the man provides and the woman raises children in a functional two parent household surrounded by love and respect. Just look around at the current dysfunction that our children are being raised in and tell me this might be a better option for kids. And even if you disagree at least respect the men and women who have made their decision to raid their family this way.

Of course, and I completely respect and approve of that choice. I don't, however, accept that that's the only choice that's "normal." I would leave that word completely out of the discussion.

I'll defer to Morgan Freeman on that one.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GeixtY...IG1pbnV0ZXM%3D

Fair enough, I'll replace normal with optimal.

Well, I have to agree with Morgan Freeman's underlying point: We Americans need to celebrate the traits and values that unite us, rather than those that divide us.

This said, I'm not sure that's what Butker was aiming for in his speech.

Christian men have had it so rough in this country they need a Chiefs kicker to give a speech supporting them? Pretty funny really.

This thread is a visibly obvious trap and you jumped right into it. I am walking the other way and not looking back.

I wasn't a Chiefs fan.

I am now.

Coming soon, Caitlin Clark tells Casey2296 and Shoeless_Moe how to live their most fulfilling lives as men...and they appreciate it.





.

Needless to say I wouldn't frame it that way either, but we can agree to disagree. Just different choices people have a right to make.

Someone coming to a mutual decision with their spouse to enter into a household with traditional gender roles is one thing, someone suggesting it's the right way to live or the only way to live is out there, in my opinion. Even on the most practical level, everyone isn't a professional athlete and many households require two incomes to makes ends meet.

Not to mention that every household is not a heterosexual couple,

You really think so? Serious question... there is no doubt in my mind (white guy, late 50's, raised protestant) that I have had every possible advantage in this country relative to any other segment of our society.

No doubt. That's why I chose the word spouse. I was also careful to say mutual decision because that's what I really value in my own relationship, the mutual partnership I have with my spouse.

We’re on the same page - I was making fun of giving such a speech. And what a dumb time and place to do it. Women out there, congrats on working hard for your degrees and all but now let me say this….

Lol. Alienate 20 million Swifties but gain Shoeless Moe.

It's a wash!

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

I can understand that a commencement speaker at a small Catholic university would feel comfortable making remarks that are consistent with Church teachings as they relate to homosexuality, although why he would feel the need to include them in that setting escaped me. I also know that the Catholic Church continues to grapple with the issue, as it tries its best to balance a big-tent approach (“All are welcome in this place”) with what has been handed down as doctrine. Taking a side on this issue is fair game, especially in this country of so-called freedom, although again, maybe he should have considered the time and place.

The comments on a woman’s place at home are more confounding. He is speaking to many who just spent four years time and six figures of tuition $$$ in order to chase dreams and he basically says take your pretty parchment diploma and use it as a placemat when serving your kid Sloppy Joes. He tells them “I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you.” Diabolical, i.e. coming from the devil. Really? So what part did a liberal arts university have in promoting such lies by encouraging these young women to enroll in the first place? Seems they should offer nothing but degrees in home economics. Or maybe the theory is that the women should have a broader understanding of various subjects so they can better appreciate the problems and stress faced by their bread-winning husbands when they come home from work.:rolleyes:

Maybe their degrees were in home economics?

Good! Get rid of the Swifties and let's get back to football.

I also liked Jerry's speech ripping Harvard a new one...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsmL1AImWLo&t=48s

Swifties probably buy a lot of merchadise, maybe as much as or more than those "normal people with normal values" who think women belong in the home and think Pride Month is sinful.

Maybe all he wanted to do is make his jersey a best seller

Take it easy Tiger,

I was raised a classic liberal where your skin color doesnt matter, nor what you did in the privacy of your own bedroom didn't matter, unless you were hurting kids. What mattered was your character.
Your progressive left would call me right wing for having classic liberal values nowadays.

Normal? It's millions of folks in the middle who are just trying to get by, young people who are just trying to make their way in a pretty disappointing society. It doesn't matter what the sexual orientation of their partner is. We've built a society that makes them choose between the commitment of having a child or paying their rent.
Normal is giving back to society and not taking imho, it's having a bit of humility and being grateful for being American, honoring the young people of the past who died for your freedoms. It's also not replacing a POW/MIA flag with a rainbow flag at governmental institutions imho.
Normal is to take a deep breath and realize you are not the most important person in the world. Normal is not taking advantage of people.
Is a gay month necessary? Not in my opinion, we fought for gay rights when there was actually something to fight for and we won. What exactly is the purpose of celebrating being gay for a month? Honest question because we haven't cared what your sexual preference is for 50 years.
I also agree with Morgan Freeman when it comes to a black month.

We also fought for Title 9 50 years ago to make sure women were a protected class in sports. Now? The current administration, college campuses, and the LGBTQ+ community is trying to dismantle it and allow men to compete with women. Is that right in your opinion? Don't our daughters deserve better?
So yes, it's refreshing to see a man stand up for his values even though I may not agree with everything he says. After watching the pro Hamas terrorist shitshow, his comments were a breath of fresh air.

Just sayin'

Do you seriously believe gays do not continue to face massive discrimination and demonization? Look no further than the writings of the Speaker of the House.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/new-...y?id=104312903

Battle still very much in progress, I am afraid. We as a society are a very long way from nobody cares.

And even if you think Pride Month is unnecessary, Butker called it SINFUL. The very demonization you think doesn't still exist. It does.

I don't see what any of this has to do with Hamas or transgenders in sports. And sorry, I don't find the rantings of a sexist homophobe refreshing. We can disagree on that.

I'm not sure what you're seeing but society had embraced gay men with open arms, yes there are still people with prejudice but your sexuality is a protected class, which many people fought for to get there.
Having a devout Catholic saying something is sinful pales in comparison to people demanding the death of Jews.

Nobody is defending pro-Hamas protesters, least of all this person who happens to be Jewish. It has nothing to do with the topic.

And sure, there have been legal gains in terms of statutes and case law. But that's like saying the fact that Black people have achieved legal gains means there is no discrimination. Small piece of the puzzle, IMHO.

I mean seriously how would you feel if you were a gay person and read this about the Speaker of the House, perhaps the second most powerful person in the country:

In comments from over fifteen years ago, long before he became a lawmaker and while acting as an attorney and spokesman for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Christian advocacy group, Johnson described homosexuals as "sinful" and "destructive" and argued support for homosexuality could lead to support for pedophilia. He also authored op-eds that argued for criminalizing gay sex.

It has everything to do with the topic, this is America, we have strived for equality for gender, race, and religion. More than any other country and we've done a fantastic job. You know how to make racism and sexism go away? Ignore it and unite with the majority of America that has American values.
If you think you need to root out every last racist and sexist you are wasting your time because you would also have to toot out Black racists, Muslim racists, etc. why isn't the gay community protesting en masse for Muslim nations condoning the death of any gay man?
Instead we see protestors embracing gays for Palestine, how clueless is that position.

Perhaps because it's late, but I am having a hard time following your logic. I was reacting to Butker's sexist and homophobic remarks, not looking to invoke a wide ranging discussion of all the hot button issues in the country. I also think your idealism does not really describe the mindset of huge swaths of people in this country who are not at all about embracing equality.

Your reply is a perfect example, you're more worried about a religious conservatives comments, who is no threat to society, women, or gay people and would probably make a pretty good neighbor irrespective of his values.
But you completely ignore the true threat to the Gay community from the Muslim community. You also completely decided to pass on the current sexism that is going on with title 9 and the transgendered community.
I'm good with all that man but don't try to vilify me, I'm the most accepting human but I'll call bullshit when I see it.

Not vilifying you at all, just stating I am not sure your idealistic view of America and it's embrace of equality is accurate. Not talking about you PERSONALLY once you clarified you were not agreeing with Butker. I am not up for getting into those other issues at the moment, maybe later.

Data reflects that what Harrison Butker is saying, that if you are fortunate enough to be able to have one parent out making a living and the other parent raising their children is the best possible way to raise children. Which I agree with. That's actually the middle class dream for many people
I don't understand how that's controversial. Take his advise or don't take his advise.

What data and from what source. If I learned anything from my many years as a researcher is that the vast majority of American's can't tell good data from bad.

I suspect what you are saying is actually an opinion supported by no data. If you have actual data please post it...because I highly doubt you do.

I can tell you that both myself and my wife work and our children are doing great. They are well rounded kids who have seem more of the world than most adults and the oldest isn't even 10.

I think it's a little disingenuous to suggest that was his point. He wasn't making any points about stay at home parenting or the benefits of it. He was suggesting there is only one parent who should be staying home to raise their children, and the basis for that point of view is gender, not benefits for the child.

I find it ironic that the social justice warriors, feminists and cancel culture are going after this guy with guns blazing for stating what he and his wife believe is the best way to live their life for themselves and their children. He's a conservative Christian man, speaking at a private university, this shouldn't surprise anyone but folks are getting their knickers in a twist and wanting to crucify him and ruin his family. Well done feminists, he's the least of you worries.

Where were the Feminists when when pro Hamas supporters were calling for the killing of Jews? Newsflash, if Hamas ran things around here no woman would have the right to work, they wouldn't have a choice. Rape would also be legal.

Why are the Feminists sitting by and allowing men to invade women's sports and spaces. They are strangely silent while Title 9 gets dismantled, a move that will have devastating results for our young women, but nobody seems to care about that even though we fought hard for that 50 years ago.
So they can all save their outage over a guy and his wife leading a conservative Christian lifestyle imho. And until they are interested in addressing true challenges to today's women they are just part of the problem.

I don't think this event is the flashpoint for all these other issues you're bringing up. People are upset with him for his choice of venue as much as they're upset with what he said.

On a very practical level, he's saying that motherhood and homemaking are a woman's highest callings, but he's saying these things in front of a large population of nuns who made very different decisions about their callings.

He can make whatever choice he wants, that's not the issue of course, it's both the venue and that he wants to impose his values on others. I too fail to see what Hamas or transgenders in sports have to do with it.

I am not taking a side here people as everyone is allowed their own beliefs and chosen path in life. I am only wondering if anyone actually read the transcript of the speech?

It certainly isn't perfect but it fit the audience and the text really seems vastly different than the media portrayal on this one. I am not much of a religious man but was raised Catholic and there is nothing here outside the box of what I heard in sermons growing up on Sunday. (Perhaps the brow beatings are a bit why I am not very religious, but I have come to not care what other people choose to do in my old age)

As for this being some vastly sexist speech as I have been told for days now...well after seeing the text, other than one awkwardly phrased sentence the rest seems somewhat dedicated to how he is only able to succeed due to the effort and sacrifice of his wife.

I am using this source FYI as it really is the only one I saw on google that was not honestly filled with the additional personal opinions of the writer...it's simply just a transcript. (I figured I would address that as I am sure someone will comment on the site)

https://www.ncregister.com/news/harr...at-benedictine

This was quoted accurately.

Not the deadly sin sort of pride that has an entire month dedicated to it,

Yes, that is. But again, it's the stand of much of the Catholic Church prior to the current Pope. It's not just him on a soapbox in Central Park, it's addressing a specific group.

Also, this track of thought is not my bag...it's why I chose my own path of belief. I just thought it a bit strange that the reaction is pointed as though he said it on the Tonight Show and not a extremely strict Catholic University.

Why does the audience make it any better? Would preaching racist filth to an audience of KKK members make it less pernicious? To me, it's a man with some stature in the community due to his athletic accomplishments making an anti-gay remark. Period.

I am not defending his statements I don't believe in, only his right to say them.

There has been a lot going on it the past 8 months of people yelling horrifically awful things against others they have no idea about and attacking them in ways that infuriate me. I would like it to not happen but the solution to making that happen could be far worse in the long run than verbal altercations.

Sure, he can say whatever he wants, but so can his critics.

Completely fair and that would be the appropriate response.

You can't imagine how many people find it ironic that someone who claims to know of data that supports their world view or current argument goes silent when they are asked to provide sources/specifics of that data. Makes them seem like they are just making things up.

Seriously? I can produce "data" to support my opinion just like any poster can support "data" to support their opinion. Are you not aware how easy it is to manipulate data in today's world?
It really comes down to life experience and what your life experiences have led you to believe what is in the best interest of raising healthy children. You can believe that a child is as resilient as adults when faced with less than optimal circumstances, I choose to believe otherwise based on my life experience. Children forced to start behind the starting lines because of adults bad choices is a disservice to children, you won't convince me otherwise.

+1 well said. I'm probably a little too emotional on this subject and appreciate your balanced view.

Peter, my comments are directed at the cancel culture critics of his speech. They really have no credibility to call for ruining the life of a man, his wife, and children on the grounds of sexism when they won't lift a finger to protect young women in sports and private spaces from men invading them.
I must be living on a different planet but I was raised to make sure women were protected, respected, and givin equal opportunity, which includes a traditional relationship and Title 9 protections
I find it truly disconcerting that the all inclusive left gets triggered when folks choose an alternative lifestyle to their norm. Because when it counted folks like me made sure that same sex couples and Jews were protected.
And that upsets me.

OK I get it, but I was not intending to endorse the cancel culture, I was just voicing a critique of his remarks insofar as I thought they were sexist and anti-gay. But I'm not calling for him to be fired or silenced or whatever people out there want.

I was raised on a lower middle class block that included Brown, Black, Asian, Irainian folks, we lived next to Wally and Chuck, who were the nicest couple you could imagine. You know why? They had a pool and let the kids swim when it was hot. They also brought awesome food to block events.

Nobody cared what they did in their bedroom, something like that wouldn't even compute back then. They also didn't get weird about their lifestyle or demand that everyone embrace it. We were just normal folks respecting each other for our differences and embracing our common humanity.

I would posit that if this guy was your next door neighbor you would have more in common than not, and an underlying respect for each other.

What the progressive left is doing now and weaponizing cancel culture is unconscionable imho.

Phil, it sounds like you had some great experiences as a child, and witnessed first hand how people of diverse backgrounds can get along just fine. Wally and Chuck sound like generous, great people.

I think the problem some have with Butker's speech is that he referred to Wally and Chuck's lifestyle as a "deadly sin". I think it can be a problem to refer to entire populations of people as sinners.

While the backlash against Butker can be labeled as just another example of liberal cancel culture, I think that some people just want to stand up for the Wally and Chuck's of the world and move away from the harsh treatment of gays that has often stemmed from the line of thinking that they their lifestyle is a sin, or wrong.

It may also be worth noting that cancel culture is not a one-sided thing. There are people on both sides of the aisle trying to cancel things that they don't like. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...e/70188510007/

If the country or even most of it was like Phil's block we would all be much better off. But there are so many indications that we are not even close to being there, and the speech ("deadly sin") is just one more. I doubt Butker is some off the charts extremist in his views. See Mike Johnson, for example.

When my wife and I started a family I wanted her to be a homemaker. She was great with it. She had a degree but not a technical one. It worked perfectly for us but, to each their own. Overall, I agree with Phil (hi Phil) on this subject.

And Butker's speech was awesome excepting for a few things. We need more of him and much, much less of Kelce...
.

I don't know if anybody here reads Ross Douthat, but he just wrote an interesting article about Harrison Butker. I was raised Catholic and was indoctrinated as well as anyone in the faith, but I did not realize there is a faction within the Church who want the Masses to be conducted in Latin again, because it's "how God wishes to be worshipped". (The Church approved common language Masses in the 1960s, and the Latin version was mostly gone by the mid-70s.)

Butker is a passionate Latin Mass Catholic, and works to get different parishes to hold Masses in Latin. He and fellow LMCs are really stirring things up, to the extent that Douthat calls his cause "progressive".

I get his articles in a weekly email, so I don't have a link for you, but if you can find it, it's a good read.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

I'm neither particularly knowledgeable nor particularly invested in this debate, but as a TLM Catholic who has run track with several people who are currently going to Benedictine I do have a few small points I'd like to make.

There is a distinction between believing that homosexuality is a deadly sin and hating the LGBTQ+. Granted, this is a distinction that is often ignored, but it is a real distinction. I am a devout Catholic and do not disagree with the Church's teaching that homosexuality is a sin. At the same time I am an unreserved fan of people such as Alan Turing, Edward Gorey, Oliver Sacks, W.H. Auden, etc. Hating people you believe are sinners is not Christian. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a bit of a cliche, but I believe it is true.

I am neither a woman nor married and don't have strong opinions about whether women should be stay-at-home-moms. I do know that my mom is very smart, a stay-at-home mom, a federal law clerk before that, and she believes she has chosen the better part. For whatever that's worth.

My personal opinion is that motherhood is the highest calling for a woman, but not their only possible calling. Women (obviously) have talents too, and I think it is a good thing to use the talents God has given you. I'm not sure what that should look like in practice, but thankfully as a high-schooler I don't need to know yet.

I don't have strong feelings about either the way other people live their lives or the opinions they hold, as long as they are not hateful. I can understand people disagreeing with Butker's opinions, but I personally think it is a misreading to think they are hateful.

I prefer thinking about and arguing about baseball & music & books, not politics; I've said enough or more than enough (I'm a verbose person).

Peace, y'all.

John, a sincere and well-written post.

I would say this. If it's acceptable for heterosexual people to express their sexuality, why is it a "sin" (indeed a "deadly sin" the term Butker used) for homosexual people to do so? Why was my friend in law school, a devout Catholic himself who happened to be gay, made to feel unwelcome at his church? Did he deserve that? To me it's a disgrace he was deemed a "sinner" for expressing his own desires. I hope the world has changed since then, but I read about Mike Johnson and I wonder if it really has.

I for one would not presume to judge what is sinful and what is not, except in obvious instances where something is harmful to other people. And I take umbrage to the attempted softening and excusing of anti-gay attitudes -- not directed at you personally.

To be honest I have never fully understood why homosexuality is considered to be such a sin. Or rather - I know of reasons that make better logical than emotional sense to me.

I would note that there are differences between heterosexual & homosexual relations that are not minor. The first is something my dad talks about. My dad believes in natural law - that whether something is right or wrong depends on whether its results are good or bad: if you get a bad outcome it is because you have done something incorrectly. By this understanding the relationship between homosexuality and AIDS is an indication that homosexuality is incorrect/wrong - and because natural law is identified with divine law - God giving us rules so by following them we do not harm ourselves and others by breaking the natural law - something is a sin because it is incorrect/wrong. I don't find this argument totally persuasive, but I think it is a point.

Furthermore, as I wrote in a similar conversation, oddly enough a year ago almost to the day (May 25):

"There are two categories of things that are wrong.

"The first are actions that are inherently malicious and harmful to others: stealing, murder etc.

"The second class of wrong actions are acts that are right but are done in the wrong way - in ways contrary to their purpose which prevent the purpose from being achieved. In the traditional view, sex has the purpose of procreation. Being a practicing homosexual is inherently contrary to the purpose of having children, and is therefore wrong because it goes against the purpose of sex.

"Actions of the second class are always wrong, but are only morally culpable if the person is aware that it is wrong." [slightly edited]

In response to your question regarding your friend's experience: In the proper understanding of the Church's teaching the sin is in not in being gay, in naturally having desires of that kind, but in acting upon those desires. If your friend was a practicing homosexual, then he was by the Church's teaching living in sin, and so should not have been encouraged in that choice by his church. (Whether it was right that he was made to feel unwelcome depends on what that exactly entailed - whether what he underwent was along the lines of charitable admonition or of personal hatred.) If he, as a devout Catholic who happened to be gay, was not a practicing homosexual, he did not deserve to feel unwelcome at his church and his church was at fault.

A last point concerning your last paragraph: the idea of some things being sinful is not designed only to protect ourselves from hurting others, but also to protect ourselves from hurting ourselves. We should not presume to judge the souls of others - judge not lest you be judged - but it is imperative that we judge what is or what is not sinful in general in order that we might know what we ought to do and not do.

double post

God made gays too, my friend. How do you explain that? And who said the only purpose of sex was procreation? Probably 99.9 percent of heterosexual relations do not result in pregnancy. Man, it's 2024. Live and let live and don't call people sinners for being themselves. AIDS as proof of the evil of homosexuality? What a crock. Ever heard of syphillis?

And yes, I don't know, but presume my friend was practicing, and knowing how gutsy he was, I am sure if officials of his church had asked he would have said so. Shame on them for ostracizing a perfectly fine man.

BTW do you have the courage of your convictions? Would you tell a gay person to his or her face you thought their lifestyle was sin?

John, if this comes across as old fashioned or condescending, I apologize. I think your parents should be very proud that they raised someone who can articulate his thoughts in the manner that you have. That you are able to do this while still in high school bodes well for the Republic.

This said, I don't think it is fair for people to ask you to defend the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Different John responding, but I am a middle-age Catholic who would say this: humans cannot choose to change what God has said regarding what is a sin and what is not. They can choose to live the faith that their god has espoused or follow a different god or no god at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathol..._homosexuality

The wikipedia page is pretty good at being even-handed when it comes to this subject.

I read the transcript of Butker's speech and though that over half was aimed at Cafeteria Catholics both in laypersons and in clergy, and the inability for clergy to even advocate for the faith accurately.

As a Catholic I firmly reject the concept that being gay is a sin. The Catholic Church has quite a few sins on its hands over many years in this arena it should account for before it judges others. That’s just my opinion.

I have some responses to these things but I don't think it would be worth the time to make them coherent, as I doubt they would be convincing to you and, as I said, I do not personally have strong feelings either way about this subject.

As I hinted earlier, I have strong feelings about baseball, books, music, economics, and arcane metaphysics. My opinions on this matter are derived from my parents and Church, and I'm fine with that because I trust them and their opinions do not seem nonsensical to me. The matter isn't relevant to me. In this thread I am not so much defending my personal convictions as explaining why I believe that the convictions of Butker and the Church I share with him may be arguable, but not hateful and not to be automatically dismissed.

There are still gaps in my knowledge of this subject and someday I will sit down and sort out what I really believe about it. Today I would rather sort out the semi-pro baseball career of Andy "Doc" "Windy" Lotshaw. Thus I will adjourn more or less now to my semi-pro research.

John, everything you say makes sense. Unfortunately, I have not heard directly from God, and so am left to rely on those humans who have. And since humans often make mistakes and rarely all agree, it is hard for me to take everything as set out by the Church. Couldn't someone have misunderstood God's Word, or written it down wrong?

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Thanks - my parents are very proud :D. I hope to do my best to make America a land of arguing, not quarreling.

And yes - defending the teachings of the Catholic Church on this subject is not something I'm qualified to do. Because I hadn't seen an explanation of the Church's reasoning in this thread, and it's relevant to the discussion, I thought I would share my understanding of it, but I don't care to defend it to the bitter end.

Amen to that. I know many devout Catholics who would agree. "Cafeteria Catholics" indeed. IMO the church should be embracing gays, including its high proportion of priests.

I will probably regret biting the bait :)

I do not believe in God, but I have read the Bible many times, read Augustine regularly etc., and generally look positively on the Christians and the Catholics. Wrong I think they are in matters of fact, but it is primarily Christian groups that I see actually trying to do good things in the community like feeding the poor. I would like a fellow to have a view that holds to reason and to be a good man, but I would rather have only the second than only the former.

I was considered left in the 2000's with the gay issue. I thought they should have equal rights and protections under the law (they now do), supported civil unions etc. I was not invested in the marriage issue, I had no objection beyond my general distaste for redefining terms to mean new things to suit the interest of a very politicized lobbying group. I am straight, have not married, and will never marry. I have no personal investment in it as an institution, beyond a generally positive historical view that it has produced social stability in the past. Now I am considered right on the LGBT stuff because I am cognizant that a man who says he is a woman is not a woman, and that there is a discernible actual reality distinctly different from what a person I identify as part of my tribe says. I am still not a turtle if I say I am.

I do not agree with the Catholics on many things, and I agree on some things (more on the values side, as I deny their rendition of how the world works). Marriage is both a state-sanctioned legal thing and a religious thing in most religions. The conservative Catholic response is really not very extreme. Yes, there are some small little groups of Christians who still think they are the spawn of satan, you can find extremes in ANY group of hundreds of millions of people. You will get some crazy extreme takes from homosexuals too (I heard far worse from social justice courses when I was attending a California university than anything a Catholic has told me). By and large, the opinion expressed is merely that the traditional ways are the right way to live, that homosexuality is sinful, and that God loves the sinner and hates the sin. It's really not that bad. I don't agree with it, I do not care what consenting adults do in privacy (I care a bit when a group insists on the sex parades and blocking traffic or inconveniencing me and having to sit through diversity spiels of political propaganda), but if THIS is the criticism facing a group, that group is doing amazingly well. I hear more intense disagreement than this kickers speech pretty much every day of my life without issue. I fundamentally object to the rising opinion that they should never have to hear criticism and that their world view is paramount to others rights of speech and that speech not consistent with LGBTQIA+-whatever-it-is-today propaganda needs to be censored from social platforms and public view as so many in the public are calling for and some have done, as I do for any group that wants to assign its feelings over others speech.

I note that people have a great courage of conviction when they believe the others won't do anything back to them for said courage. Christianity is freely and constantly attacked often over this rather mild stance on the gay issue, while there is no courage of conviction from gay rights activists to deal with Islam at all. If we cared about homosexuals, not political points, we would focus there. The Catholics are just an easier punching bag, an institution unpopular with those circles that takes criticism healthily and with a shrug and isn't out executing gays or people who criticize their faith. It seems to me fairly obvious that the actual religious threat to gays is not Christians who merely don't agree with them, like this kicker's rather innocuous speech that people are assigning value to for some reason.

That there are far greater threats to gays (and of course there are) does not make the anti-gay stance of the Catholic church or individuals somehow innocuous or inconsequential. It is still very hurtful to large numbers of people to whom the religion is important. The issue should be addressed on its own terms, IMO.

I think it’s quite interesting to see the much lesser issues attention is steered to. A kicker just saying he disagrees with homosexuality and believes it is a sin is not at all consequential. It really is not. If we cared, we would focus where there is consequence. This is just easy political bait the media loves, not a consequential thing at all. The church proposes no punishment or anything beyond saying they disagree with it. They call it a sin and then say God loved the sinner too. There is no consequence whatsoever.

Talk to my friend in law school who was driven out of his church and endured great emotional pain as a result. You don't think being stigmatized and told you're sinful by an institution that's an authority figure can be traumatic to people? It's just "not a consequential thing at all"?

In the real world, people are going to disagree with people. Gays nor any other group are or should be immune to this. I’m a having a very very hard time seeing how someone’s ‘emotional pain’ of not being sort of a group that their life and views are contrary with is a real consequential problem for the world. That’s how pretty much every organized group in the world works, if you fundamentally believe or think incompatible things you will not stay a part of that club, group, faith or company. The Catholics won’t accept me into their church either because my views are now contradictory to their theology. That’s every religion ever.

The Catholic record is infinitely better than other broad, common and widespread religions that concerned gay rights supporters are unwilling to criticize like they will the Catholics, even though the intolerance of the other faith is actually broadly consequential. It’s very interesting.

I think you are underestimating the importance of this sort of rejection and prejudice and ostracism on people's well being, and many people are not immune whether or not they should be. By your standards, I think, Black people should just shrug off all the prejudice directed at them, except if it actually has a consequence like not being hired. Not realistic IMO, and too indifferent to people's emotional and psychological health. I am not advocating for a society of snowflakes either. But we should be mindful of the effects of prejudice, especially coming from institutions like the church.

Of course, it has to be about race :). Black Americans have faced extremely consequential racism in the past, and on a micro level, I'm sure some still do as do people of every group on a micro level because there is always going to be X% that are just jackasses. If somebody says something you don't like without consequence, well then yes, get over it. One will live a miserable existence if they get upset and 'emotionally unhealthy' any time they encounter disagreement, just handle it healthily and move on. I've heard racism from every race directed to every race. It's now mostly all inconsequential as actionable racism is illegal in most regards and is socially not accepted. I really do not care if a black guy or a hispanic woman or a trans asian or a differently-abled Itlaian says something bad about the Irish. I really wouldn't see anything to complain about if they complained about an act I did they disagreed with.

Gays in 2024 in mostly Catholic parts of America do not face any real consequence. Everyone gets their feelings hurt, when an argument is 'your views and words hurt my feelings which we call emotional health to make it sound like it's actually hurting me' it's not a good argument. Guess what, I don't like encountering a host of views, and nobody cares except me because I don't have a political campaign behind me.

That is not a real consequential issue; I do not and will never advocate for any group who believes they have some sort of special right to never have to encounter differing views or dissent (a right, of course, never to be given to the other side). Getting your feelings hurt sucks, it really does. And it happens to all of us. Your gay friend is not special. This, frankly, is where most reticence to their agenda comes from now - 'gay rights' has come to largely mean not having to hear anyone disagreeing (harming 'emotional health') with their agenda, since there is no actual right they do not already have the same as everyone else. Just like this has gone, it quickly usually becomes about not wanting to have to hear any other view.

There is not an action consequence, the Church simply disagrees with them and I disagree with the Church's stance. Putting feelings first is rather absurd when there are other major faiths throwing gays off buildings and cutting off their heads.

I understand the perspective but to me it's too callous and "get over it" is not a helpful thing to say to people who are traumatized and may not have the self-assurance and capacity to do so.

As a liberal, I believe gays can be just as manly as straights :). They can do it just as well as the rest of us.

No group has, needs or should ever have special protection of their feelings. The straights have no right to never encounter dissent, the Catholics have no right to never encounter dissent, the Irish have no right to never encounter dissent. Equality means getting the same deal as the rest of us.

You and I and Mr. Butker and your gay friend and a priest all have the same and equal protections. No more, and no less. Nobody's feelings are worth more than anyone else's.

Many gay people have been ostracized by their own families. Surely you aren't so callous as to say to them, get over it, there's no actual consequence?

I think we have to separate two things here.

There are broad things, the things we discuss when we talk about society and policy and how things work and are structured. Dealing with the common things, rather than micro examples that usually go all over the place. This is mostly what I am talking about, the stances of major institutions like the Catholic Church and the Islam commonly practiced in the world.

Then we have the small things people deal with on an individual level. As I said above, you are always going to have X% of the population that are just jackasses. Does that suck? Yeah, but what can we pragmatically do about that? They always have existed and always will. Micro examples can be found for any outrageous view, but usually are not common and meaningfully relevant to a larger societal context.


I have been primarily speaking of the first here, because that is how you actually manage a society and how a people live. Nobody will deny, there are very tiny obscure groups of Christians who, as I said, really do believe horrible things about gays. The position of the Catholic Church is a very very mild censure of disagreement and stipulating God's love for the sinner anyways.




Your example here is phrased in a difficult way. It belongs to the second category. Do we believe a person has no right to stop associating with another person? I doubt it, a person, blood or not, can stop associating with someone for any reason or no reason. Are they an asshole for doing it for this reason? Of course. If I had a kid and he was gay, I would not give a shit. A father's role is to raise a boy into a good man, that has nothing to do with this. What choice is there though besides, yes, getting over it? You cannot force someone to love you. You cannot force people to associate with who they do not want too. In the real world, we do not get to control other people. Is it a shitty situation? Yes. Would I sympathize for them and feel empathy? Yes. But what, practically, is to be done besides getting over it? I know a lot of people know hate this idea of getting over things, but it is far, far healthier to take life's punches and stand back up rather than too allow in self-pity for the rest of your life. The phrasing here assumes that a healthy mental state is callousness. I don't think it's either or. I can sympathize with people going through a difficult time and enduring a shitty personal situation, and I can also be aware that getting over it is the healthy answer. We have, all of us, surely gone through some shit. Some more than others. But I have never seen a single person improve their lives by refusing to get over the bad things. I could sit here and cry and play victim because X and Y and Z have happened to me in life, but what does that do? How does that help me? Will that make me happy? Fulfilled? Is it healthy? No, to all of them. There is no other real answer.