Feminism = Homosexuality?

Why has the homosexual agenda gained so much momentum in later years? Is it because we surrended to Feminism decades ago?

I recently read an interview with Phyllis Trible in the latest issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. I'm not sure if BAR is advocating her view, or if it was meant as a backdoor exposé, but to justify her views she must marginalize Paul's theology about man being created first as just one reading of the Genesis text, and put forth a contradictory but equal reading from a feminist's point of view.

The implications of her point are clear, as described in a quote at the end of this post, their being in the image of God had nothing to do with their relationship to each other as male and female, but as non-procreating humans. Therefore "both heterosexual and homosexual relational experience make possible the imaging of God."

Was the battle for America's families lost with the ratification of the 19th Amendment?

 

You post like a liberal to rail against a charicature instead of meeting the real argument face to face.

However, years ago I heard Elisabeth Elliot say that Feminism will lead to the acceptance of homosexuality. The closest thing I could find to that statement on the Net was this:

Contrary to the article's assertion, Elliot was not exaggerating anyone's argument.

 

Feminism is a broad term. By and large it is a political movement that began in the late 19th Century that pushes for the elimination of gender roles in society.

 

People have been thinking this as long as there were people around to think, apparently. </font>[/QUOTE]But no civilization has been around as long as there were people around to think. As each civilization waxed worse and "crossed the line," God brought them down.

At the end, the decline will be on a global scale, and the judgment brought will equal that. It will be as it was in the days of Noah.

 

Correction, my title asks a question. It is not an assertion.

One does not have to be a homosexual to approve of homosexuality. The Mark of the Beast doesn't have to be on the hand AND the forehead. Those who practice and those who approve are equally guilty before God, Rom. 1:32.

Still, you didn't meet the argument head on. You created a charicature and railed against that.

Again it asks a question. What was the basis of women's sufferage? Was this an evangelical thrust, did it stem from biblical theology or from the philosophies of 18th Century Enlightenment?

Once an unbiblical premise gets its foot in the door, the battle's over.

Now, a case could be made that radical feminism — disregard of all male-female differences — could in some way argue for the legitimacy of homosexuality.

What is the difference between radical feminism, and the feminism that you are advocating? Where is one correct and the other false? This is a real question. Where do you draw the line between one and the other?

The Enlightenment and the cult of self are far, far more potent explanations for the acceptance of homosexuality, though it has existed in all times, whether recognized or not.

And, again, Feminism has its roots in the Enlightenment.