KC Chiefs kicker complains about "emasculation of men," gay pride & says women should be homemakers

oddly, that culture is accepted whole heartedly by maga. They voted for trump to be their rep for potus over other candidates that had stronger “immutability” to their core Christian values.

 

KC posted their schedule on IG. Some of the comments in response….

 

Saw that. That was funny

 

The people in attendance--the actual targeted audience--dug it.

...and the gist of the speech was to hold the line vis a vis faith.

Be boldly committed to your faith; be prepared to get slaughtered for it (the 'masculinity' part).

Yeah, I'd say that's pretty apropos for a grad speech for a small private l cat col.

 

Just a guess but don't think wife's worried about it.

Harrison Butker Contract Details, Salary Cap Charges, Bonus Money, and Contract History | Over The Cap

 

Really. How do you know the people in attendance liked it?

 

Robust applause, and comments afterwards from ppl in attendance.

 

Where can I read the comments?

Students speak out on Harrison Butker's 'uncomfortable' commencement address

 

Well received/embraced:

Why the speech by Kansas City Chiefs kicker was embraced at Benedictine College's commencement

Standing o:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/05/17/harrison-butker-commencement-marriage/

 

Safe to say, mixed reviews.

 

Yes, which really gets to the heart of the problem. He stated an ideal, as if it were an easy option. Ppl took that to be dissing their state of necessity (ie mom/ wife has to work yo make ends meet).

As I posted early on upthread, from *my* experience, *most* women would prefer to stay at home. And of the ones that can--they do not tend to be apologetc about it, while the career women w/o children, do seem to betray a hint of something missing.

That said, career wife-moms (again, just my experience)-seem quite fulfilled, though prolly would be quite good be SAHM, if it were feasible.

 

Safer to say it was well received, with a sprinkling of dissent.

Like most grad speeches.

You can seldom expect to please everyone--unless you're Oprah, and bribe em all with a car....

 

Not unless you did a survey. It's just your opinion. Most grad speeches are forgettable by the way, not well received with a sprinkling of dissent. Unless you had a Jerry Seinfeld or the President then, maybe it was more likely memorable.

 

I've been to plenty of graduations. I only remember one where the keynote speaker was booed. Pretty much the rest were welcomed with applause, with a small handful, with standing O's. If they got a standing O, there were invariably, rumblings from contrarians.

Perhaps it's the standing O that triggers overt dissent; perhaps it's the power of the thing that prompts folks to their feet, that pisses some off...

But I'll concede your point about being forgettable. The only one whose content I recall, was the one that got booed. That was some funny shit...

Fwiw.

 

I'll reply to this post rather than the other, simply due to the brevity of this one, vs the length of the other one.

Anyway...I read the excerpt you posted ( thank you for isolating out the controversial part)--and personally do not have a problem with it. I agree with you-it is consistent with the Jesus of the gospels, and consistent with my views on homosexuality.

My opposition to 'gay marriage' was always based on the fact that marriage has always been bt a man and a woman, while the notion of gay marriage is oxymoronic and contradictory. And my position with homosexuality is that it is a sin; it's practicants to be tolerated and loved, but their sin, still to be abhorred--certainly not to be exalted or celebrated, anyway.

The statement you posted takes pains to distinguish between blessing the people in the relationship (love the sinner...), from the sacrament of marriage, or even anything liturgical or eclessiaatcal.

I can see how it would be perceived as controversial, in that it's characterized as *blessing* the union in the sense of sanctioning such, but is instead, a blessing upon the individuals involved.

... and of course, Jesus came for the sinners, not the sinless.

As a side note--I'm reminded of a book I read years ago, which I've mentioned before, though I'm sure no one would remember that. I've recommended the book to countless ppl, and no one ever took me up on it, so I kind of stopped. Kinda forgot about it, in fact, until now anyway. It's: What Jesus Meant, by Garry Wills. It's a real grab you by the lapels kinda book... In it, he treated the topic of homosexuals, and how Jesus would likely have treated them.

Had a profound impact on me, in my younger, more homophobic days...

Fwiw.

 

^^^
What Jesus Meant

Fyi/fwiw.

 

Maybe the women all agreed with his speech, but he certainly didn't think they would, telling them they had been told "diabolical lies", meaning they had been deceived by Satan.

For the ladies present today, congratulations on an amazing accomplishment. You should be proud of all that you have achieved to this point in your young lives. I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career? Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.

Also, one thing I just picked up with a quick read that you. He only mentioned two saints, one twice. St Damien of Molokai (good choice), but only for his acts, no words. One one saint is mentioned for his teachings:

St. Josemaría Escrivá states that priests are ordained to serve, and should not yield to temptation to imitate laypeople, but to be priests through and through. Tragically, so many priests revolve much of their happiness from the adulation they receive from their parishioners, and in searching for this, they let their guard down and become overly familiar. This undue familiarity will prove to be problematic every time, because as my teammate's girlfriend says, familiarity breeds contempt. [Laughter]

Saint Josemaría continues that some want to see the priest as just another man. That is not so. They want to find in the priest those virtues proper to every Christian, and indeed every honorable man: understanding, justice, a life of work — priestly work, in this instance — and good manners.

Founder of Opus Dei. Suddenly everything makes more sense. If you know what you are listening to, the whole speech drips with Opus Dei themes about how to live your life. Either Buckner is Opus Dei (likely - they do not reveal), or the speech was written by someone from OD, likely some combination of both.

Opus Dei is fascist and dangerous and has the ear of many powerful levers of American power.

 

MAGAt 101.

Pull back from details or statements to 30,000 feet to assist with excusing what was done or said.

There is no way to excuse, "Your life is meaningless until you have a baby in wedlock." None.

 

Ok. You want to talk deets?

Go ahead and point to Butker's actual words, wherein he said what you (actually, literally) *quoted*--or rather, put in quotes, to wit: "your life is meaningless, until you have a baby in wedlock."

Your standard. Apply it to yourself. Go:

 

Reportedly, Butker continues his rampage, counseling young Americans to get married and have kids.

He must be stopped!