Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Today's Ad, Con't.

Four of the signatories identify themselves as Roman Catholics. One, Michael Tegeder, is the pastor of the Church of St. Edward in Bloomington, MN. I don't know why he doesn't identify himself as a priest in the ad, but he doesn't, and he is. A priest, I mean.

The only woman in the group is Mary Beckfeld, who is a board member of something called "Catholic Rainbow Parents." Its website describes it as a "small but determined group." She's also active on the Archdiocesan Commission on Women. Of her eight children, one is a homosexual man. I'm not sure which of these qualifications makes her a religious leader, but she says she's one.

17 comments:

angelic doctor said...

The one of the eight children she manipulated the most in childhood is the gay man. I'm not surprised at her adamantine resolve on this issue, because it is either accept the gayness of the son or find fault in her own (mis)raising of him.

Sue said...

Angelic- sounds like you know the lady.

denis said...

Re: angelic doctor

Not all children who "grow up" to reject Christianity do so because they had bad parents. David, the apple of God's eye, had Absalom.

chicklette said...

Just to inject a little humor here-A friend sent me this joke last week, that puts the whole "gay marriage" nonsense in a new light.

>Okay, here's the plan:
>
> Back off and let those men who want to marry men, marry men.
> Allow those women who want to marry women, marry women. Allow those folks who want to abort their babies, abort their babies. In three
> generations, there will be no Democrats!!!

angelic doctor said...

No Sue I don't, and I don't mean to imply that I do -- I just think that the pathology of homosexuality usually follows very similar trajectories (one for men, another slightly different for women). These are the usual "recipes":

Male homosexual: manipulative / abusive and confusing mother, absent, cold or distant father, early childhood/adolescence molestation/seduction and an act of the will on the part of the man to choose the homosexual lifestyle.

Female homosexual:manipulative/abusive/confusing father, cold, distant or absent mother, and early childhood sexual abuse by a male, often a close relative or the father and an act of the will on the part of the woman to choose the homosexual lifestyle.

As you can tell, I am on the nurture side of the debate here, and I just think that this genesis theory holds up better to scrutiny.

angelic doctor said...

Denis:

I agree with you actually (see my preceding post, i.e. the "act of will" part). I just think that her motivations to participate homosexual advocacy are touched by guilt over her part in raising her son.

angelic doctor said...

And Sue, I am sorry to come off judgemental of the woman in question --- I was trying to make a point, although my tone might have been motivated by crabbiness.:)

Mary Beth said...

SO, Angelic Doctor - if homosexuality is the result of parental influence (of a severely negative kind) why is only one of a large family homosexual? They only "screwed up" with one kid?

I'm sorry, I don't buy that argument.

Jeff Miller said...

Fr. Tegeder also wrote an op ed some months ago against the same amendement in the StarTribune.

angelic doctor said...

Because Marybeth, as I detailed, there is a constellation of factors as well as free will on the part of the son. Each child in a family is not identical -- neither on the nature (genetic) or nurture(upbringing) side of things. Free will is particular to each individual as well, which is why even under nearly identical circumstances people make different choices.

angelic doctor said...

And Marybeth, the only other argument is that homosexuality is inborn, something for which there has never been any satisfactory scientific studies.
As a Roman Catholic, I can look to the catechism which states that homosexual activity is gravely disordered and sinful. The tendency itself is something to be struggled against but is not inherently so.

Des_Moines_Girl said...

I've never bought into the gay marriage is a civil right thing. Marriage is not a "civil right."

Further more, the state has been regulating who can/can't get married from the beginning.

Don't believe me? Ever try marrying your first cousin? How about a 9 year old. There is legal precedent - the state can regulate marriage and no one's civil rights are being stepped on.

Christopher McLaughlin said...

how are them tulip bulbs coming?

Sue said...

God bless you,. Christopher.

Anonymous said...

The problem with chance: Why does our creater leave his followers barren, yet the sodomites have a potent seed? It makes me wonder...

Mister Know It All said...

Oh, hey, a lot of us have potent seeds. Everyone knows Catholics breed like rabbits.

As for choosing to be gay? I don't buy it. Reminds me of what Archie Bunker said about Sammy Davis Jr--he started out black, which was bad enough, and then became a Jew. I can't see willing myself to want to do ....that. Or .... that. And especially not .. that.

nica ha said...

hi, ran across this blog and thought it was interesting :) and all this talk of gay marriage reminded me of a little quirky news clip i read a while back; looks like it's not just the humans that are gay after all... enjoy! :D

http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp