Harrison Butker graduation speech

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

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.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

[cgjackson222]

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/

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[Leon]

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...
.

[Gorditadogg]

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

[John1941]

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.

[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?

[bk400]

Originally Posted by John1941

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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[John1941]

Originally Posted by bk400

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.

Thanks - my parents are very proud . 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.

[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"?

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Two points. I think hatred towards gays, or at least severe prejudice, extends much deeper and further than you postulate here. It's not just some obscure little groups. My opinion.

Also, I don't disagree that in an ideal world it would be better to move past things like prejudice and ostracism and even abuse, but I think you may be overestimating the capacity of many people to do so. I blame the perpetrators, not the victims. And however minor in and of themselves, to bring it back to the original topic, speeches by public figures reinforcing an anti-gay message are, in my opinion, additive to the problem.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Two points. I think hatred towards gays, or at least severe prejudice, extends much deeper and further than you postulate here. It's not just some obscure little groups. My opinion.

Also, I don't disagree that in an ideal world it would be better to move past things like prejudice and ostracism and even abuse, but I think you may be overestimating the capacity of many people to do so. I blame the perpetrators, not the victims. And however minor in and of themselves, to bring it back to the original topic, speeches by public figures reinforcing an anti-gay message are, in my opinion, additive to the problem.

The major groups that are actually consequentially anti-gay are the ones we don't want to talk about, like Islam. No seriously significant or large group in America that the gay agenda wants to target is actually running around trying to put the gays into concentration camps like the far left has been claiming for eight years, or to criminalize them, or any seriously consequential policy at all. 71% of Americans apparently support gay marriage, and most of the remaining 29% are not arguing to do anything consequential to them at all, they just think marriage should not have been redefined to suit a lobby. By and large the split is now the advocates who want to make any dissenter shut up and those like me who are not having this argument of putting gays feelings over everyone else's speech rights.

I'm not blaming the victim in this scenario, I'm engaged with reality. You cannot possibly undo the past - you do not control what happens around you or oftentimes to you. What you have control of is how you respond to that which happens. We do not live in a perfect world, all of us have things happen that suck for us. We can get over them, or live in depressive misery forever. That's just reality. Getting over it is the healthy response to things. A person who does not have the capacity to get over things will live a miserable life regardless of their orientation. They will never be happy in any realistic scenario.

A kicker saying he disagrees with homosexuality and advocating absolutely no punishment or deprival of rights whatsoever is no different from pro-gay speeches, aside from the fact that one opinion is more popular than the other. It's a completely meaningless event, simply used as fodder for political bait. This shouldn't even be a headline at all, there are actual issues in the world that have actual consequences beyond protecting the feelings of incredibly sensitive people who nobody should be able to dissent.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The Speaker of the House has advocated criminalizing gay sex. As best I can tell, he has not disowned those views.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The Speaker of the House has advocated criminalizing gay sex. As best I can tell, he has not disowned those views.

I used the present tense for a reason . Please identify this significant, broad group (only among the desirable political targets, of course, rather than the obvious) in 2024 that is doing this.

Johnson was apparently against Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, and in 2004 supported a ban in Louisiana. Many leftists were against gay marriage over 20 years ago as well. This has nothing to do with today of course; at this time gay marriage was a minority view and most of America changed their minds on it. What bill is Johnson pushing to do these things in the current situation?

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't know the agenda, stated or unstated, of every "Christian right" group, for example, but my concern extends beyond groups to individuals especially prominent ones, whether or not they have the power or the intent to actually promote legislation. Acceptance and an end to prejudice are a matter of hearts and minds, not just law. Leaders who send that message, celebrities who send that message, parents who teach that message, going to perpetuate it IMO.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't know the agenda, stated or unstated, of every "Christian right" group, for example, but my concern extends beyond groups to individuals especially prominent ones, whether or not they have the power or the intent to actually promote legislation. Acceptance and an end to prejudice are a matter of hearts and minds, not just law.

Exactly - this does not exist. There is no discernible real movement with any significant support to do anything to the gays beyond the horror of disagreeing with their lifestyle choices, as Butker did. No other group is immune from experiencing hurt feelings and dissent. There is no actual problem we can identify, and the obvious actual threat to gays we do not want to talk about.

We can throw out as many isms as we want, the feelings of a homosexual are not paramount to the speech of someone who does not support homosexuality. A right to free expression and speech is held by all; a right to never encounter dissent is held by none. An argument that a leftist view should not be expressed or held because it hurts the feelings and 'emotional health' of some conservatives would be immediately rejected, mocked and laughed at. This is just silly political theater, and not an actual problem. There is no right the gays do not have that everyone else does. There is no actual attack from Catholicism on them. There is merely dissent, and the desire to suppress that dissent.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Exactly - this does not exist. There is no discernible real movement with any significant support to do anything to the gays beyond the horror of disagreeing with their lifestyle choices, as Butker did. No other group is immune from experiencing hurt feelings and dissent. There is no actual problem we can identify, and the obvious actual threat to gays we do not want to talk about.

We can throw out as many isms as we want, the feelings of a homosexual are not paramount to the speech of someone who does not support homosexuality. A right to free expression and speech is held by all; a right to never encounter dissent is held by none. An argument that a leftist view should not be expressed or held because it hurts the feelings and 'emotional health' of some conservatives would be immediately rejected, mocked and laughed at. This is just silly political theater, and not an actual problem. There is no right the gays do not have that everyone else does. There is no actual attack from Catholicism on them. There is merely dissent, and the desire to suppress that dissent.

As I posted before, I am not suggesting any prior restraint on anyone's speech. That doesn't mean I cannot object after the fact. And if people use their celebrity stature to make speeches advocating that being gay is a "deadly sin," I do and will object.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As I posted before, I am not suggesting any prior restraint on anyone's speech. That doesn't mean I cannot object after the fact. And if people use their celebrity stature to make speeches advocating that being gay is a "deadly sin," I do and will object.

Exactly. You may say as you like, under the same right that lets me say that this is inconsequential dissent and there are far, far, far worse major religions that do actually bad things to these people instead of just disagree with what you like.

[Peter_Spaeth]

We agree on your second point but disagree on your first (inconsequential dissent).

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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.