Harrison Butker graduation speech

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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 the particular way he desired to express himself.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

double post

[Peter_Spaeth]

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?

[John1941]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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?

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.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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.

[Carter08]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

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.

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.

[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"?

[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

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by swarmee

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.

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

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by swarmee

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.

I've heard the "sex is intended for procreation" line of reasoning before when discussion homosexuality. If homosexuals should remain chaste because their sex cannot lead to procreation, shouldn't it follow that women past menopause should remain chaste? Or anyone, male or female, who are unable to have children for some reason?

Not asking this as a attack, just wondering if there's a response out there.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

I've heard the "sex is intended for procreation" line of reasoning before when discussion homosexuality. If homosexuals should remain chaste because their sex cannot lead to procreation, shouldn't it follow that women past menopause should remain chaste? Or anyone, male or female, who are unable to have children for some reason?

Not asking this as a attack, just wondering if there's a response out there.

Or any woman not ovulating?

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

I've heard the "sex is intended for procreation" line of reasoning before when discussion homosexuality. If homosexuals should remain chaste because their sex cannot lead to procreation, shouldn't it follow that women past menopause should remain chaste? Or anyone, male or female, who are unable to have children for some reason?

All things are possible through God? There are multiple Bible references of women thought barren who conceived through prayer or faith.

Sex outside of marriage is also a mortal sin, not just gay sex. That's one reason that many priests are homosexual in leaning, I think the last number theorized was around 30%. Most are attempting to live chaste lives, so they serve the church as priests who agree to vows of celibacy. But they don't deny that gay sex is a sin.

Those who are having sex before getting married are usually counseled to not take Communion unless they repent (through Reconciliation) and live a chaste life, just like with every mortal sin. If you want to dig in further, I recommend talking with priests or deacons.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Speaking only for myself, I do not believe God would give people the gift of sexuality, then want a huge percentage of people (gay and single) to have to stifle it, many for their entire lifetimes.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Speaking only for myself, I do not believe God would give people the gift of sexuality, then want a huge percentage of people (gay and single) to have to stifle it, many for their entire lifetimes.

Not only that, but if procreation was the only purpose for sex, why aren't women constructed to be able to get pregnant at any time during a month?

Women are only fertile about 6 days of every month. So, if a couple have sex daily, 80% of the time they don't even have a chance of conceiving.

I conclude sex obviously has other purposes than simply procreating.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by swarmee

All things are possible through God? There are multiple Bible references of women thought barren who conceived through prayer or faith.

Sex outside of marriage is also a mortal sin, not just gay sex. That's one reason that many priests are homosexual in leaning, I think the last number theorized was around 30%. Most are attempting to live chaste lives, so they serve the church as priests who agree to vows of celibacy. But they don't deny that gay sex is a sin.

Those who are having sex before getting married are usually counseled to not take Communion unless they repent (through Reconciliation) and live a chaste life, just like with every mortal sin. If you want to dig in further, I recommend talking with priests or deacons.

I am not trying to be cheeky here, but if God can make it possible for an 80-year old post-menopausal woman to become pregnant, he can also make a man become pregnant.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

I am not trying to be cheeky here, but if God can make it possible for an 80-year old post-menopausal woman to become pregnant, he can also make a man become pregnant.

Is there an instance of an 80 yer old woman getting pregnant?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Is there an instance of an 80 yer old woman getting pregnant?

Sarah (Abraham's wife) was 90, I think.