Harrison Butker graduation speech

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.