Harrison Butker graduation speech

[G1911]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

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"?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Talk to my friend in law school who was driven out of his church and endured great emotional pain as a result.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

+1