THE POLITICAL PAGE

July/August 2009

 

Consequences of the Gender-Ideology
by Rosemarie Stresemann, Berlin

 

Some time ago I chatted with a man at a takeaway about the opera music he was listening to very loudly at that moment. In this context he told me something about his mother-in-law who didn't like this kind of music at all. Then he talked about his "bridegroom" who shared all his tastes. After the talk I first asked a friend of mine whether I had understood the word "bridegroom" right. Both of us realised that this man must have been living in a long-term homosexual relationship. Through this experience I became aware of the new way our society uses language. We have started giving familiar terms new meanings. Words like: marriage, getting married, family, gender and spouse lost their unambiguity long time ago. In an interview regarding the future, a teenager answered: "If I haven't married a man by the age of 28, I will marry my girlfriend." There are no clear statements any longer, no clear definitions for marriage and family - everything is possible.
Unnoticed by the majority, the new ideology (new thinking patterns and moral concepts) is being brought into society by new terms or reinterpretations of existing terms. This is destroying God's image reflected in the difference between man and woman. There should be no differentiation any longer between man and woman. Many steps are being made to completely destroy the biblical idea of man and woman, marriage and family.

Step One: The Gender Term
The English language differentiates between "sex" - the biological sex (sexual characteristics and bodily functions) and "gender" which is a more social description. Gender refers to the social gender roles, the idea and expectation of how men and women are or should be. However, the term not only comprises two categories but a variety of genders (transgender). Gender roles can change in the course of time and be different within and between cultures.
Gender - this is a very vague and imprecise term which was used by feminists to emphasise the separation between the biological and social role, and to call for change. But this ambiguity is exactly what is wanted to embrace the large range of social meanings contained in this term. Meanwhile universities offer so called "Gender" study courses. This term has also penetrated into politics. In the beginning it was mainly about the request for equality between men and women. Meanwhile we have 'Gender Representatives' in all public authorities who check whether there is discrimination against females. Even though all of them use the same term, not everybody refers to the same thing. The soft differentiation between "sex" and "gender", however, has extensive consequences. It allows me to choose what I want to be, from a gender point of view, independent from my biological sex.
According to the radical gender theory, man and woman are no longer the will of God with their differences but simply a social construct which can be overcome by using the term "gender". A band leader, who had been living with a transsexual woman, expressed this gender-ideology in an interview with a newspaper: "It's not about simply focusing on the outward differences but about designing your own gender."

Step two: Law Change
The law empowers the state to stipulate the gender of a person. Therefore, the aim of the gender-ideology is to abolish the state's right to use certain definitions for gender, gender identity and sexual orientation. Everybody should have the right to construct their own "gender".
The term 'gender' allows the homosexual movement to push through their request for legal equality. In this sense homosexuals have even introduced new terms: homophobia and heterosexism

Homophobia
On 18th January 2006, the EU parliament accepted a request with the following title: Proposal of the European Parliament Regarding Homophobia in Europe. This text describes homophobia as follows: "Prejudice based upon irrational fears and aversion against homosexuality and lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals similar to racism, hostility to strangers, anti-Semitism or sexism"
The comparison between homophobia and anti-Semitism and racism has been adopted by the politicians of our own country (e.g. Volker Beck). That's outrageous if we look at the meaning of this word and its origin
It was created by an American homosexual psychotherapist in 1966 to explain the attitude of rejection of homosexuals by heterosexual men. In psychology, phobias are vicious, obsessive and completely overwhelming fears. The lesbians and gays who are organised in civil rights movements have been quick to adopt the term of homophobia to describe all rejection of homosexual behaviour. What this says is: Anyone who rejects homosexuality for whatever reason is homophobic.
Compared to heterosexuals, homosexuals see themselves as victims. They therefore treat rejection of their lifestyle as if it were racism or anti-Semitism. The culprits who should be legally pursued are all those who don't accept homosexuality. By equating homophobia with racism and anti-Semitism, homosexuality is no longer a personal preference but an inseparable part of a human being's fibre. According to this 'logic' any statement or act which questions this lie of immutability is considered to be discrimination. In art. 13 of the treaty of the European Union, the principle of anti-discrimination was applied to sexual orientation thanks to the successful lobbying of the homo-, bi- and transsexual movement.

Heterosexism
The next new word 'heterosexism' was created more recently. Like the word homophobia this term is used to describe homosexuals as victims. They are the victims of the idea and moral concept of heterosexuals - that means of an ideology. Since this moral concept does not grant homosexuals the same legal space afforded to heterosexuals, homosexuals are, in their view, being discriminated against. Any other moral concept and way of thinking regarding homosexuality is considered to be a suppressive and dangerous ideology. This is 'heterosexism' and it is put on a par with racism and anti-Semitism.

Conclusion:

An ideology has sprung up in recent years which seeks the complete separation of the human being from its original, God-given biological condition. It has not only found support among the homosexuals but it is widespread, especially through gender-courses and political authorities.
According to the logic of this intellectual edifice, every ethical consideration regarding sexual practice should be discarded and regarded as discrimination. Dissimilarities are considered similar, and threats of punishment are being pushed through by the EU in order to suppress all objections.

 

Tools: The Anti-Discrimination Law
"The Proposal of the European Parliament Regarding Homophobia in Europe" from 2006 says: "Regarding art. 13 of the treaty about the establishment of the European Community, the community is given the possibility to bill norms to fight anti-discrimination due to sexual orientation among others and to promote the principle of equality."
This proposal demands that all the member countries of the EU:

There is a law in England which imprisons people who create an 'atmosphere or climate' of hate based on sexual orientation. Canada and France already have similar laws. But what does a climate of hate produce? According to the interpretation of homosexual organisations this includes the speaking out of biblical statements regarding homosexuality.
Homosexual ideologues claim it is impossible to change homosexual tendencies. But no-one is allowed to question their opinion. On the one hand they stand for the right of sexual self-determination (in the sense of gender-ideology) and on the other they reject the right of homosexuals to change into heterosexuals. Offers in this direction as well as any kind of counselling are prohibited. The lobby is on the point of prohibiting people from making public statements to this effect. The anti-discrimination guidelines of the EU are the basis for expanding the legal framework for homosexuals and limiting it for Christians. Whoever dares to think something different from what the framework of homosexual ideology dictates is discriminating. Every other expression of opinion can be criminalised in this way.
But at the same time nobody notices the illogicality of this mindset. On the one hand gender is seen as a construct for which they fight, considering everything to be live- and changeable as desired. On the other hand the self-chosen change towards heterosexuality is impossible and vehemently fought. This is a contradiction in their argument!

Legal Attack on Marriage
Marriage in Germany, which is protected by the basic law, is a special right of heterosexuals for which homosexuals have fought strongly. Homosexuals have succeeded in breaking the monopoly of heterosexual marriage as the only legal form for long-term relationships. Homosexuals in Europe have come very close to their target of putting homosexual partnerships on the same level as heterosexual marriage.

On 14th January 2009 the European Parliament passed a resolution regarding the basic laws in Europe which was accepted by a large majority. The resolution targets the equal treatment of homosexual partnerships and marriage. Point 77 says: The European Parliament calls on those member states who have not yet done so, and in application of the principle of equality, to take legislative action to overcome the discrimination experienced by some couples on the grounds of their sexual orientation. In plain English this means: If this proposal becomes EU law, national legislators will no longer be permitted to distinguish between marriage and homosexual partnerships. Marriage and family would then lose their special status, which is protected by the basic law in Germany at present.

On 22nd May 2009 on the 60th anniversary of the proclamation of the basic law, Brigitte Zypries (SPD), the Minister of Justice requested the protection of so-called "gay-marriages" by the basic law. Her reasons were: "Because life partners deserve the same respect and legal recognition that marriage partners have, the basic law should be changed to protect registered partnerships alongside marriages." Miss Zypries has become the mouthpiece of the Lesbian and Gay Association (LGA) which called for a change of the basic law some time ago.

Berlin as Forerunner
By implementing EU guideline 2000/78/EG on civil service law, Berlin has become the model for promoting equality of registered life partners and marriages. Berlin's role is to be expanded, now. This gives us a hint for what we will soon experience in the Federal Republic.
On 2nd April in the House of Deputies in Berlin all parties (!!) accepted a demand of the SPD and Left parties with the title: Initiative "Berlin stands up for the self-determination and acceptance of sexual diversity".
The name of the programme already shows what it is all about: The target is no longer tolerance but acceptance. With this initiative Berlin has developed a sophisticated programme describing how this acceptance could be spread throughout the population. The initiative clearly says the following (the underlining is my contribution):
"In future Berlin will clearly take a stand in the Bundesrat and in public debates in order to […] ensure that equality is carried out and act effectively against discrimination. In the same way Berlin will become active in representing the concerns of the LGBTTI such as, for example, in the modernisation of marital status and naming rights.
The rehabilitation and compensation according to §175 of the criminal code of convicted people in both German states is already overdue. The progressive way into the future can only have a sustainable impact on society if we get rid of the dark pages of the past and its abiding effect."
Unfortunately they note:
"Applied to the Federal State the present balance seems to be different. Compared to the other member states, the Federal legislator has not only made up his mind for the institutional expansion of marriage but has created a new institution. Gradually and in painful individual steps, equality is being addressed despite considerable resistance by the conservative, social and political spectrum in particular. Also the European measures against anti-discrimination have been delayed, hampered and avoided in Germany."
How can the target of acceptance be achieved in this way?

1. Through Re-education
The key to any implementation of ideologies has always been education and social indoctrination especially through working with the young. Whoever reaches the heads of the next generation has sown a lasting seed.
In order to cover everything and not miss anything compulsory supplementary training has been ordered for: "Berlin teaching staff, female and male pedagogues as well as for school psychologists, social workers, educators in the administration office of the federal state and non-profit organisations in adequate form regarding the themes of diversity and "acceptance of sexual and social diversity". Key persons in responsible positions who work with young people and in schools should be trained. The training is to be effected by non-profit organisations within the lesbians and gay association. The Initiative expresses it very cloudily: "This has to be carried out in cooperation with the qualified non-profit organisations with experience and proven expertise in this area which has to be supported in their work." Support in this context means that more finances will be made available for the budget! That means that all citizens have to pay taxes in order to re-educate their children!

"Interaction with sexual diversity" should be a compulsory subject during teacher training at universities. Action should be taken in order to no longer "marginalize" this topic. They provide manifold control for this and other themes: The Senate is to be informed about the implementation of it and the success of the measures at the end of 2009 as well as in the following year. Every action is subject to evaluation because they want to be sure that this initiative will be successful.

All teaching organisations will be provided with "target group-specific information material" regarding the "sexual diversity" theme (of course at the taxpayer's expense). A contact person with 'appropriate qualifications' has to be available in schools and his or her duty will be to oversee the colleagues because it also says explicitly that: "It should also ensure that AV 27 is respected in schools". AV 27 is a far-reaching regulation about how to teach on sexual diversity in schools. Since the majority of teachers have ignored it until now they have to exert pressure and control!
They will also control "to what extent interaction with sexual diversity can be made a compulsory subject of the school curriculum." The school inspection should then be carried out by the school supervisory board, to see whether implementation has been successful.

2. Tough financial pressure
If projects are financially supported by public means the work has to be towards projects which will skilfully and demonstrably include sexual acceptance and diversity in the focus of their work. This not only applies to "classical" youth, education and sport projects ... Within the promotion framework of youthwork gender reflective work for boys in particular should be especially emphasised. Standards will have to be developed which receivers of public financial assistance will be obliged to fulfil in order for funding to be allocated. Quality management should be developed which will ensure the targets for promoting the acceptance of sexual diversity are fulfilled and taken into consideration.
In this way the foundation would be laid for withdrawing public support from Christian organisations because, once again, the promotion of acceptance is not the same as the promotion of tolerance.

3. Through the exploitation of all manipulation options
The public representatives of Berlin are expected to pave the way for the acceptance of sexual diversity:
"The Senate and House of Representatives in Berlin are obliged to set an example by using every appropriate opportunity to convey this message insistently from a city-wide up to an international level"
The Berlin Senate has to advertise the "development of a common acceptance campaign within the whole city". That means that the common confession towards the esteem of sexual diversity should be effectively promoted in the public arena.
For a long time Berlin has had an office for equal opportunities - against discrimination (LADS) - which has the duty, amongst others, to "promote the acceptance of same-gender lifestyles and the abolition of prejudice".
Although many projects and initiatives have already been promoted by this office to improve the climate for sexual diversity within the departments, they still complain about not yet having been as successful as planned. "On the evidence of rejection" they will step up efforts. Although they recognise that "acceptance can not be dictated", they still dictate it and try to enforce it by pressure.

4. Through public punishment for non-acceptance
The Berlin administration is to be sensitised in order to "publicly reject any form of discrimination and non-acceptance of sexual diversity". The pillory method they might use is left to the imagination of every reader. Also in the public sector they are considering allowing preferential access to LGBTTI people; the so-called Lesbians, Gay, Bisexuals, Transsexuals, Transgender and Intersexuals.

Conclusion:

Acceptance is not the same as tolerance. Tolerance is a basic attitude towards people who hold different opinions. That does not mean that their opinions have to be accepted (in other words: welcomed). With the word "tolerance" we can describe an attitude of a person or a group of people who do not agree with a certain opinion but who are still acknowledge it. According to gender ideology, homosexuality has to be accepted. Tolerance is not enough and is not a desired target.
Every ideology, whether it be Communism or Nationalism, tries to impose their way of thinking on the next generation. The younger the people are, the less will they be able to resist it. And nobody is allowed to fight this new ideology.
The democratic state form should actually protect its citizens from living under ideological pressure. 60 years ago, after the experience of fascism, the parliamentary council developed a basic law to protect citizens from becoming once again victims of a totalitarian ideology. They were to be protected from having to live in a state which forcefully dictates what people should think. Right now we see the gender ideology using the democratic state and trying to impose its totalitarian ideals using public funds. Gender ideologues are trying to deny those with conflicting opinions their basic rights such as art. 4 GG,1 "Freedom of religion, conscience and the freedom of religious or ideological expression are inviolable", as well as the freedom of expression (art. 5GG,1) and the right of research, science and education (art. 5GG,2)". People are only now starting to resist this erosion of basic freedoms.

Fight for the freedom of expression
The fight for the freedom of expression started last year, in autumn 2007: The university hospital for psychiatry in Graz held a congress on the subject of "Religion in psychiatry and psychotherapy". Among many others, Markus Hoffmann the leader of the Christian association W?stenstrom was offered two workshops. He wanted to report about their experience working with people suffering from ego-dystonic sexual orientation. This includes all people who cannot cope with their sexual orientation or preferences. Beside this he wanted to present his counselling programme "Aufbruch Leben" (i.e. Emerging Life) which aims to strengthen the identity of men and women. Among others the W?stenstrom association helps people who are trying to find a way out of their homosexuality. A smear campaign in the media organised by the Lesbian and Gay Association in Germany (LGAG) led to this workshop being cancelled. The association was accused of putting homosexuals under the pressure to be "healed".
At the Christival youth event in 2008, a workshop held by the German Institute for Youth and Society (DIJG) entitled "Understanding Homosexuality - Opportunities for Change" was also cancelled by the institute because of a large-scale media campaign. As a result, 27 questions regarding Christian groups and their attitude towards homosexuality were raised by the 'B?ndnis 90/Die Gr?nen' (the parliamentary fraction of the Green party) before the Federal government. However, the situation escalated to such an extent that some other workshops could only take place under massive police protection. These included the one on 'Sexual Abuse of Boys' (by W?stenstrom) and another one on the psychological consequences of abortion (by AMSEL).

Attack on Evangelical Protestants
Since then, the pressure on speakers from W?stenstrom and the German Institute for Youth and Society has increased significantly and has turned into a campaign against Evangelical Protestants. The 6th International Congress for Psychotherapy and Counselling took place at the Marburg Civic Hall and university from 20th-24th May 2009. The congress was meant to offer a discussion platform for Christian counsellors and therapists of all denominations. Speakers from W?stenstrom and the German Institute for Youth and Society were invited to talk on the main subject of "Identity". In an open letter in April to the Lord Mayor of the city, as well as to the Chancellor of the Marburg university, Volker Beck from the Green Party and LGAG demanded that the invitation to these speakers be withdrawn. After refusing his request, the political pressure was increased day by day. They formed an action alliance called "No Space for Sexism, Homophobia and Religious Fundamentalism" whose initial desire to evoke the cancellation of certain seminars was soon overtaken by much further reaching aims.

The action alliance said in a press release: "This move does not go far enough as far as the alliance "No Space for Sexism, Homophobia and Religious Fundamentalism" is concerned. Our protest is addressed towards the congress as a whole. The problem is not only three sessions or speakers, but that homophobia is the basic orientation of the Evangelical Movement. Instead of offering religious fundamentalists a platform, cities and universities should stand up for equality and fight homophobia." And "'Homophobia' is an 'inhuman' thought pattern that has no place in universities and other official locations. Homosexuality is neither a sickness nor does it need therapy". "The scientific mainstream understood this 30 years ago - but not the Evangelicals", said Nebenberg, the female speaker for the alliance.
This action alliance was supported by over 55 groups. They included the Lesbian and Gay Organisation, the Antifa Group, the student's union executive committee, the student bodies of various universities, some groups of the Federation of German Trade Unions and the Left party.
The alliance considered the 'conservative' world view of heterosexual marriage to be a problem for homosexuals because "the 'heterosexist' environment 'strongly' hampered the 'practice of homosexual tendencies.'" In this way the alliance justified their aim of impeding the congress. The action alliance said: "We want to impede the congress as a whole and fight against it as a symbol of conservative right wing propaganda."
The congress opponents smeared houses, signs and display boards of Evangelical institutions with their slogans and defamatory statements about religion. Malicious damage suits resulted.
The leaflet also said: "The Evangelical movement is a backward-orientated stream within Protestantism, which is marked by fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible, by its claims to absolute rightness of its mission and its attempt to influence society."
Such statements can also be found in the book "Mission Gottesreich-Fundamentalistische Christen auf dem Vormarsch" by two journalists of the ARD TV station who are pleading for a ban of Evangelical institutions and for them to be prevented from making public statements. The claims of the action alliance had the same orientation i.e. to silence opposing opinions.
Prof. Thomas Schirrmacher, President of the Martin Bucer Seminar writes in this context: "The persecution of religious minorities (and minorities in general) starts worldwide with disinformation, afterwards turns into clear discrimination, and ends with the clear persecution. The authors are already practising disinformation on a large scale and are openly calling for discrimination on a large scale - the Evangelicals shouldn't have contact with the media or with politicians, or have the right to publish; they should be deprived of their charitable status and public money support and their schools should be regulated more severely. For a long time nobody has called for such far-reaching restrictions against religious communities in Germany."
Gabriele Kuby, a publicist, said: "It is not homosexuals who are being discriminated against here, but those who want to maintain the ethical foundations of society, family and Christianity."

Christians becoming politically active
In a public statement on 20th April, more then 370 citizens and numerous prominent individuals openly called for the Marburg congress to not give in to pressure. The body behind the initiative: "For Freedom and Self-determination" saw the action against the congress and its speaker as an attack on their fundamental rights. One of the first who subscribed was Gabriele Kuby a publicist who wrote a letter to the Lord Mayor of the city of Marburg and encouraged him not to give in to pressure against the congress. The statement was a clear sign that citizens are defending their basic rights. She encouraged the politicians of the city who stood up for the congress but by doing so also sparked controversy.

Conclusion:

It is high time to wake up, to object to this ideology and to confront politically its totalitarian claims. Dietrich Bonhoeffer taught: "Waiting without acting and watching without seeing are not Christian attitudes." We have to turn to God to send his light and truth and break the web of lies that is spreading throughout Europe and is just about to ensnare the whole world. We should - as far as we can - contact politicians and help them to discover the true intentions of this new ideology.
We have to resist the attempt to limit freedom of speech in a democratic state. We have to fight for the next generation and safeguard the continuity of our society!

 

PRAYER

by Rosemarie Stresemann, Berlin
r-stresemann@versanet.de