Harrison Butker graduation speech

[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.