Lesson 1, Topic 1
In Progress

3.2.3 Application/Discussion

Creation order and Gender-ideology

Genesis 1:27 “So God created mankind is his own image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”

Even if the term marriage is not explicitly mentioned, the creation story clearly means bisexual marriage as the order of creation. In both accounts of creation, the generativity of creation belongs to it (Gen. 1.28 and 2.16), thus the different sexes and the family. According to the Bible, marriage and family belong together, so realistically the two sides too: the joy and lust of sexuality and the (sometimes hard) burden of caring for the brood. The provision of old age by the offspring was of vital importance, therefore the 4th and 6th commandments and the law of marriage in law, which is strange to our view of marriage today. 25.5. After creation, God blesses man. Mind you, the blessing does not go to a most harmonious and lasting love life, as is desired with today’s marriages, but to the generativity: “Be fruitful and multiply …” Since the Romantic era, on the other hand, a new, dangerously one-sided image of marriage as a lifelong harmony in mutual love has prevailed: marriage as being in love forever. The expectations of the other partner and the divorce rates resulting from disappointment and excessive demands are correspondingly high. The decoupling of generativity (“brood care”) from marriage has reached its peak in the recognition of the 15th Relationship found more homosexual than marriage. The family is thus sidelined. The so-called “marriage for all” is only the tip of the iceberg of a homosexualization of society, in which the love relationship between two people (which does not concern the state at all!) Is equated with the brood care of a family. In terms of income tax, the splitting table was designed as a support for the family and not as a reward for being caressed.

The EKD overturned here uniquely quickly and completely ignored the ecumenical partnership with the Catholic Church, which is usually invoked. Synods can also be wrong. Downright grotesque: “Spouses 1 and 2” in regional church eaves forms. In campaigns, under the exertion of targeted political pressure, not only the equation of homosexuality with heterosexuality, but also the gender ideology to some extent has been enforced. This differentiates biological gender (sex), which is supposedly purely external, from social gender (gender, from Latin genus), which supposedly determines the essence of people and is purely culturally shaped. This social gender role, i.e. the role that a person plays or wants to play in society, is supposedly the primary one, the physical differences are insignificant. In the meantime, there is extensive transcultural role research on this, in which, in a circular argument, the result happens by chance, which was assumed as a preconceived working hypothesis. In the field of education, the massive 1968 demands for the abolition of the reactionary, gender-segregated Catholic private schools have now been revised. Recently, the Catholic schools are again considered to be trendsetters, because boys and girls could be promoted much better. Now comes the next ideology of equality. The social and natural gender roles are usually the same. There are, however, exceptions, e.g. as a famous example: Chopin’s lover George Sand. Of course there are also people who (do not want to) fit into male or female so easily. Such hermaphroditic phenomena also exist in plants and animals. These are listed by the WHO as persons with “undetermined gender characteristics” under diseases. The gender ideology actually turns it into a so-called “third gender”. Exceptions are to be taken seriously, but exceptions indicate that there is a rule. For ideological reasons, the exception should be made the rule here.

In the political arena, gender ideology is widely sold as the enforcement of equality for women. In fact, there is much more behind it: the denial of the sexes and the separation of marriage from offspring. The legal equality of homosexual partnerships with a marriage is then the logical consequence of this nonsense. 16 Initially, however, the change in gender roles in the last few decades was largely positive. While the pre-war generation still proclaimed a complete separation of the two roles (in 1983 there were mocking looks in the village when people pushed the stroller), the roles became more permeable over time. Last but not least, this benefited the children, whose father no longer seemed infinitely distant to them. A change in the strictly separate gender roles was caused by technical progress with its new possibilities: On the one hand, caring for a family today requires significantly less time than it did a few decades ago, when there were no washing machines, refrigerators, freezers, etc. and also no easy-care textiles gave. On the other hand, many jobs today can just as easily be carried out by women, which in the past required greater muscle strength in a man. For example: tall ships require up to four men to be at the helm at the same time in a heavy storm. Today, giant ships are steered with a sure instinct using a joystick. The tragedy of the officer candidate on the Gorch Fock II shows, however: The blessing turns into a curse when society slips to the opposite extreme and now Women demand of themselves to have the same muscle strength as a man and, on the other hand, of men to be able to be as sensitive as them. But we are not made that way. By the way: In everyday family life, the equality of the roles of men and women creates considerable additional stress. It has to be constantly clarified who takes on which task. On the one hand, our state propagates the abolition of the gender difference, on the other hand it tolerates a parallel society with largely unlawful Muslim girls and women. The role of a housewife and mother, on the other hand, is disqualified as a cricket at the stove. Unfortunately, the parties leave family politics almost alone to their wing power women. Children are seen in the Bible as a blessing from God. Today they are more of a poverty risk. The state uses completely wrong financial incentive systems against families. Those who want to live well financially are better off staying childless. The families pay later for his pension. Splitting table for gays is a mockery of families. The gay advocacy groups claim to speak for the gays. That is by no means the case. Instead of nicely talking about homosexuality, many suffer from the abnormality of their predisposed or acquired attitudes. Christians who reject the privileged institution of marriage for gays are now labeled as sick: they suffer from “homophobia”. This incredible allegation is fatally similar to the practice in the former USSR of declaring critics of the regime to be mentally ill. Here sour is made sweet and sweet is made sour (Isa. 5:20).