Am I a Rape Supporter?

So I finally decided to watch one of The Amazing Atheist's (TJ from now on) "Hate Week" videos. Mainly because the title "A Feminist" intrigued me for being so specific instead of the blanket terms like "Idealism" or "Individualists".

So I watched it. And being naturally skeptical of the source material he was referring to, since I couldn't find a link for it on the Youtube video, googled one of the phrases to find the source.

What sounded like a rather exaggerated form of "sex-negative" feminism was real. And I'm going to link to it because googling "A Man Is a Rape-Supporter If..." really should be the first Google result instead of wherever it is (I gave up after 4 pages).

So basically "Eve's Daughter" (ED for brevity) of "Eve Bit First" has decided to make a list that women, and men like myself for the purposes of discussion, can use to determine whether a man is a rape-supporter.

So according to this list I am a rape supporter, regardless of my actual beliefs because I've answered yes to a few of the statements. In reality, where the positions people take are not dependent on a list designed to support a presupposed position I don't condone any rape at all, but in this case my actual positions aren't important because that isn't the topic at hand.

Although this list is supposed to determine which men are "rape supporters" the correct answer is 100% of them. This is a view that ED has made in other posts such as this one entitled "Women's Lives Need a Trigger Warning where she wrote:

Dear men:

Die.

No, seriously. This is a rant, and it’s about you, personally. You, personally, are a shit, because statistics indicate there is an almost 100% certainty that you have either committed a rape, or wanted to commit a rape, or knowingly assisted or defended someone who committed a rape, or mocked a woman who was raped. And no, I’m not dropping links to tell you what you should damn well already know.

The comments thread of the post that I am responding to supports this claim where she wrote:

Nor did I state or imply that all men commit rape. I said in a separate post that nearly 100% of men either are rapists, would be, would assist a rapist, or are rape supporters, and most commenters who have critiqued this post have agreed that, yes, nearly all (or “all”) men support rape according to this list.

This is someone who already has a hatred of men. I don't think that anything will change her mind short of probably all men dying from some disease that's caused by a human variant of Wolbachia. But this is the internet, so I can say whatever the hell I want, just like she can say whatever the hell she wants.

With knowledge of this in mind let us move on.

So let us see these points that make a man a rape-supporter.

First we have:

He has ever sexually engaged with any woman while she was underage, drunk, high, physically restrained, unconscious, or subjected to psychological, physical, economic, or emotional coercion.

Overall it is a little broad, but many of these points are valid. Some, like being physically restrained, are dependent on other factors. Misa Akane, the author of the blog, The Last Lemurisian has mentioned that she likes restraints as a kink. I suspect that this opinion wouldn't matter to ED because restraining a woman, even if it's consensual, would still represent the oppression of women which is pretty much what she writes here on an post about BDSM where she suggests that BDSM and rape fantasies are a coping mechanism.

The next point is:

He defends the current legal definition of rape and/or opposes making consent a defense.

Which doesn't make any sense to me. The current legal definition of "rape" for my state may be found here. What part am I supposed to disagree with? It would have been nice to know what ED defines rape as. I've tried to find a definition on her blog, but I haven't come up with anything. Am I supposed to argue for a broader definition or a narrower definition or what? Is ED's definition of rape similar to that of Dworkin who said that all heterosexual sex was rape? ED has stated that she didn't define rape, which really makes this point meaningless.

And then we get the part about consent. Does she mean consent can't be used as a defence ever? Or that I shouldn't prevent people from using consent as a defence?

The next two points are:

He has accused a rape victim of having “buyer’s remorse” or wanting to get money from the man.

He has blamed a woman for “putting herself in a situation” where she “could be” attacked.

Both of these points are ones that fall under the "blame the victim" label. The first point you have to ask does ED believe that all rapes are true? That no woman lies about rape? Here is a story from India where a group of people used rape in order to blackmail a man. Here is a story from the US where the woman blackmailed a man she slept with. As to the latter Girlwriteswhat at Owning Your Shit probably explains this better then I could as does Misa Akane. Ironically I don't really want to actually discuss the second point because the point in question is like a razor-thin wire that is covered in grease. The most I will say is that I don't believe that rape victims should be blamed for what happened to them.

The next points all fall within the sex industry:

He has procured a prostitute.

He characterizes prostitution as a “legitimate” “job” “choice” or defends men who purchase prostitutes.

He has ever revealed he conceives of sex as fundamentally transactional.

He has gone to a strip club.

Of course, as ED clarifies in the comments, this means nothing about the poor exploited sex workers, it's all about the consumers. See as long as we men are evil and dirty we will exploit women regardless of whether they actually want to do that job or not. Yes there are people who are forced into sex work, and the people who do are the scum of the earth, but ED is tarring all prostitutes with the same brush.

In the comments ED also said that this list does not cover sex workers. That's probably because there are sex workers out there who do it because they like sex or they like stripping and they've found ways to get paid to do what they like to do. Ironically she would like SA laws on prostitution because they punish the consumer. You see SA law says that you are allowed to be a prostitute, but the Johns aren't legally allowed to pay you.

And conceiving of sex as fundamentally transactional? Technically that can apply even to fundamentalist Christians who consider sex only for procreation.

He is anti-abortion.

He is pro-”choice” because he believes abortion access will make women more sexually available.

Here is where I will defend ED's words here. This is not a contradictory set of statements. A man can be pro-choice but wouldn't be considered a rape supporter if it wasn't for selfish reasons. However, and this hasn't been clarified, it might also boil down to ED believes that all men believe this, as if men are say, lions, and that this is the real reason we men can be pro-choice.

He frames discussions of pornography in terms of “freedom of speech.”

He watches pornography in which women are depicted.

He watches any pornography in which sexual acts are depicted as a struggle for power or domination, regardless of whether women are present.

The last point means that even gay men can be rape-supporters. But it's not just men who discuss pornography in terms of "freedom of speech". The Australian Sex Party also discusses porn in terms of "freedom of speech".

In an interview with Beat Magazine, porn star and candidate in the 2010 Victorian elections, Angela White said regarding the censorship of one of her movies:

“It was really upsetting because it was actually with one of my best, best girlfriends and we made a video where we did candle wax play,” says White. “We’re talking about two girlfriends - two consenting adults - expressing their sexuality and wanting to play with candle wax but it was censored and not allowed.”

But in the context of this list the banning of one of her movies is probably a good thing because it breaks a few of the items on the list.

Incidentally does "watch[ing] pornography in which women are depicted" mean that I support rape if I watch porn with actual women in it, or with men who are pretending to be women? If it's the former then it's a rather misogynistic statement to make since it's dehumanising women who work in porn. I guess if you are of the opinion that they are dehumanised anyway then why bother humanising them. If it's the latter then it's just weird.

He characterizes the self-sexualizing behavior of some women, such as wearing make-up or high heels, as evidence of women’s desire to “get” a man.

Because women don't want to get a man. In fact they don't seem to have any desires at all. Women apparently don't want sex, instead, as her statements in the comments section clarify, it's that women undergo societal pressure to desire sex. It's as if women are some kind of asexual being.

He tells or laughs at jokes involving women being attacked, sexually “hoodwinked,” or sexually harassed.

Don't laugh at the wrong jokes.

He expresses enjoyment of movies/musicals/TV shows/plays in which women are sexually demeaned or presented as sexual objects

Oh Fuck. I watched Italian television when I was last in Italy and all they do is present women as sex objects. Even in their version of Wheel of Fortune.

And what about watching a movie like I Spit on Your Grave, a movie that's about a women who is gang raped and gets her revenge by killing the perpetrators?

Good thing I don't like plays like The Vagina Monologues what with all the rape in it.

He mocks women who complain about sexual attacks, sexual harassment, street cat-calls, media depictions of women, or other forms of sexual objectification.

♫ One of these things is actually relevant. Everything else is just doesn't belong. Can you tell me which thing is actually relevant by the time I finish my song? ♫

The answer is "sexual attacks". Arguing against that would make you a rape supporter. In some cases for everything else the mocking may be relevant, like a woman complaining that men only pay attention to her looks when she dresses in a way that emphasises her looks more then anything else. But of course three points earlier it was said that women don't actually do that.

He supports sexual “liberation” and claims women would have more sex with (more) men if society did not “inhibit” them.

The reason "liberation" is in commas only makes sense when you read this post. The argument of that post in a nutshell is actually that point in the list.

He states or implies that women who do not want to have sex with men are “inhibited,” “prudes,” “stuck-up,” “man-haters,” or psychologically ill.

But I don't really see how this means he supports rape. I could understand it if it was in a checklist titled say "A man is a douchebag if..."

He argues that certain male behaviors towards women are “cultural” and therefore not legitimate subjects of feminist attention.

Finally, after all the stupid something that is valid. But only when it comes to rape. But I guess when one works on a fucktarded definition of rape that only you know then this statement applies everywhere.

He ever subordinates the interests of women in a given population to the interests of the men in that population, or proceeds in discussions as if the interests of the women are the same as the interests of the men.

So in the first part it's that men should believe that women's issues are more important. So fuck men's health issues like prostate cancer because it only has about the same death rate as breast cancer (same statistical probability in Australia too, 1 in 9). Because such a discussion on its own subordinates the interests of women.

There are times when issues are important enough that discussing them over other issues is in the best interest of society. Prostate cancer is a pretty good example since men are less likely to go to the doctor then women and people know less about it considering that it affects men at the same rate as women.

The latter part is pretty judgemental by assuming that the interests of women is automatically the opposite to that of men.

He promotes religious or philosophical views in which a woman’s physical/psychological/emotional/sexual well-being is subordinated to a man’s.

And how exactly does misogynism = rape? Does it follow that misandrism = rape? What about misanthropy?

He describes female anatomy in terms of penetration, or uses terms referencing the supposed “emptiness” of female anatomy when describing women.

What the fuck is this supposed to mean?

He defends the physical abuse of women on the grounds of “consent.”

Isn't that a contradiction in terms? But then again this list means that there are no possible ways sexual practises that count as not being abusive.

He defends the sexualization or sexual abuse of minor females on the grounds of “consent” or “willingness.”

Right, a contextless statement. I'm really going to be able to discuss this. Is this about consent laws in general? Or "close-of-age" laws? What exactly does this mean?

He promotes the idea that women as a class are happier or more fulfilled if they have children, or that they “should” have children.

He argues that people (or just “men”) have sexual “needs.”

We do? I know some men who don't like children, I know women who don't want to have children. I don't understand where exactly this is coming from. Now I would have thought that such ideas exist simply because as a species we have a desire to breed, unless you are ED who says in the comments:

For your first point, is there any evidence of a “drive” to reproduce in women outside of social pressure? No, obviously not. We can’t separate people from their social conditioning. In the meantime, though, telling women (and men) that they experience innate biological pressures like a “need” to sexually engage with others or an “urge” to reproduce is used to justify (and encourage) sexual objectification and exploitation, as I previously discussed.

ED believes that women don't have any sexual desires, instead it's a product of social conditioning. Just like how people (or men) don't have any sexual needs.

He discusses the “types” of women he finds sexually appealing and/or attempts to demean women by telling them he does not find them sexually appealing.

So it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. This is another one of those statements that mean that even gay men are rape-supporters because they don't find women sexually appealing. Unless you read the comments where you find:

If you’re not “attempting to demean women” by saying you’re not sexually attracted to us, then no, obviously this does not apply.

Apparently this statement only exists because some men make stupid comments on news stories about rape.

But I'm not gay, so I support rape if I find a woman sexually appealing or unappealing for whatever reason. It doesn't matter if it's her body shape or her intellect I support rape because I dare to have preferences in my choice of women.

He sexually objectifies lesbians or lesbian sexual activity.

And your point is? How does this mean that a man supports rape? There is a pretty big disconnect here between this statement and what the premise of the topic is.

And now the last bloody point:

He defends these actions by saying that some women also engage in them.

Because women are just blameless perfect beings that should not be held to the same standards as men.

The hypocrisy is just astounding.

But what conclusions can I draw from this? On it's own this is quite possibly one of the greatest troll pages of all time, but I looked around on this blog to try and understand some of the points that she made, should I consider this to be a Poe? It would be a very elaborate one, but it might be one nonetheless. However I'm inclined to believe that this is genuine. That ED really hates men and also by extension women.

The comments on women not having sexual desires of their own makes me think that she considers women to be immature, child-like even. And that men making these women think that they want sex is akin to a child molester grooming their victim. And in that sense it makes me think that ED considers women to be mentally inferior, that they are easily controlled and conditioned, that they are puppets and that we men are puppetmasters.

But would I call ED a misandrist? No, neither would I call her a misogynist. I would say that she is a misanthrope. She hates men because they perpetuate what she considers the oppression of women, but hates women because they are oppressed, or at least because they act in ways that she does not like. Naturally she apologises for them, but her manner in doing so appears to betray an underlying hatred of her own sex.

But am I a "rape-supporter"? As I said at the start, no. I'm not. But to ED that doesn't matter because I have a penis and therefore I automatically do.

A Response to the WBC Site "God Hates Australia" - Afterword

I believe that this is the right term. I thought that this would be useful because there are a few small things that I would like to point out that I had found.

Part of my research into this series did actually see me look at some of the other sections in the "God Hates" site. These were based on possible ideas and arguments that I could make or just an interest in what they thought about other countries based on what I knew about them.

I had assumed that they would mention good things in societies that they claim that "God hates", in the same way that the Skeptic's Annotated Bible has a list of good stuff in the Bible.

It started when I was writing Part 1 my mind drifted to India, a country that I would have thought might have some good points towards it. What a fool I was to assume that. They mention some possible good things, but only because they use it to show what they consider a bad thing. India is known for more socially conservative practices, take a look at what happened to Richard Gere.

The closest thing that I go to a good thing was that they have a low divorce rate. You can find that right here. It's followed in the next sentence by a "you shouldn't have arranged marriage".

I did however find this somewhat ironic gem:

OTHER WHOREDOMS

Can you say Kama Sutra? Yes it goes like this….NASTY! This is an ancient guide book about perverted sex practices with how-to pictures (YIKES)! Here is just a little bit of information about it….brace yourselves…I hope you have a barf bag handy.
The famous Kama Sutra states that homosexual sex "is to be engaged in and enjoyed for its own sake as one of the arts.” There are chapters on conduct of the only wife and conduct of the chief wife and other wives; chapters on advice of the assistants on the choice of lovers, looking for a steady lover, ways of making money, renewing friendship with a former lover, occasional profits, profits and losses; and chapters on improving physical attractions, arousing a weakened sexual power.

If that wasn’t bad enough, don’t puke now, but there are an additional 10 chapters on “stimulation of desire, embraces types, caressing and kisses, marking with nails, biting and marking with teeth, on copulation (positions), slapping by hand and corresponding moaning, virile behavior in women, superior coition and oral sex, preludes and conclusions to the game of love. It describes 64 types of sexual acts.”

Because we all know that sex is dirty. I'm now going to randomly quote from a book:

My beloved thrust his hand into the opening, and my inmost being yearned for him. I arose to open to my beloved, and my hands dripped with myrrh, my fingers with liquid myrrh, upon the handles of the bolt.

See, as I was going to say before that quote was that the Bible doesn't have any sex in it at all. Unless you happen to read Song of Solomon, why not try chapter 5 verses 4 and 5. Why I find the WBC passage funny is that they seem to just conveniently ignore any references to sex in the Bible.

It might not be as explicit compared to the Kama Sutra but it's still there in the Bible. The Kama Sutra might be straightforward, but apparently it also is created for married people, or at least the author spent some time talking about marriage. The quoted parts appear to have been lifted word-for-word, and uncredited from the Wikipedia article.

The second time I looked at another one of these pages was regarding Part 3.

Part three was on the "False Religious Systems" of Australia. They mentioned the Pope. I would have thought that they would have something on the Pope on their "God Hates Germany" page considering that the Pope is from Bavaria.

Again I was wrong.

Their Religion page is primarily about the "Evangelisch" churches (Protestant denominations). But that isn't what I consider to have been the stupidest. It's right on the front page, and the first thing for the Manner Of Life page. There is a subtle difference in the two, the first is from the "front page":

What else is this shameful country known for but the murder of millions and millions of people in World War II? The filthy pervert fag Adolph Hitler was raised to power and then able to convince a people to carry out his plan to virtually eliminate a race. What is wrong with you people to blindly go along with such evil and wickedness? You all are drenched in the blood of those murdered!

Crime/Genocide

What else is this shameful country known for but the murder of millions and millions of people in World War II? The filthy pervert Adolph Hitler was raised to power and then able to convince a people to carry out his plan to virtually eliminate a race. What is wrong with you people to blindly go along with such evil and wickedness? You all are drenched in the blood of those murdered!

I've bolded the subtle difference.

You saw that right, Adolf Hitler, a man whose regime sent between 5000 - 15000 homosexuals to concentration camps, is apparently gay. Never mind that one of the reasons given for the execution of Ernst Röhm was that he was openly gay. Nope. Hitler must have been gay. But the historical revisionism doesn't seem to end there. Notice how they don't mention Jews. I suspect that it must be because God hates them. God Hates Israel apparently.

The last thing is that based on their front page God apparently likes most of Africa and South America, excluding French Guiana, and most of the Middle East (considering that the WBC rants on and on about the evils of Islam) except Iraq, and Israel.

A Response to the WBC Site "God Hates Australia" Part 1.

Before I begin, as far as I can tell the following is actually a site that belongs to the Westboro Baptist Church. Looking up on whois gives me the same result for the following site and the American counterpart (which is linked to from their main site). Otherwise it is the most elaborate form of Poe's Law that I have ever encountered.

Without further adieu I shall introduce you to God Hates Australia part of the God Hates the World website.

At the moment I'm going to write about this.

Their first section on why God apparently hates Australia.

The first subsection is, and no surprises here, is entitled "Fags":

FAGS

When you throw the standard that the Lord your God set since the foundation of the world right out the window, what you get is a country that has NO morals! Every year that evil country known as Australia holds numerous Fag Pride Parades. Here are just a few examples of how these arrogant beasts roll: Pride March Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Pride March Adelaide, SA, Australia: Gay Mardi Gras Parade, Sydney, Australia.

Psalm 81:12 So I gave them up unto their own hearts’ lust: and they walked in their own counsels.

Let's start with the obvious here. Morality is quite subjective. What one society considers immoral may be considered to be moral in another society. We can see throughout different societies similar themes appear, justice for example, not killing someone as another. The main "morals" that Phelps and his ilk are going on about refer to the Biblical laws regarding sex. I do not believe that I have ever seen, heard, or read, about the WBC going on about people wearing clothes of two different materials, or eating prawns. If someone can show me evidence to the contrary I will gladly point it out. WBC "morals" appear to be ones where you can't divorce, be abstinant until marriage, and Leviticus 18:22.

For some fun according to Wikipedia the US has 141 LGBT events (if I counted correctly), Australia has according to Wikipedia 13 of them. I don't really have a comment here, I just thought it would be interesting to point it out.

By the way WBC, there are groups in Australia that hate gay people as much as you do, I find it interesting that you don't talk about them. Perhaps that might destroy the image of the "oppressed religious sect with outspoken views" that you like to try and press.

The verse from Psalm 81 is a psalm entitled "God's Appeal to Stubborn Israel".

The next section please:

DIVORCE/REMARRIAGE

46% of Australian marriages end in divorce. What is wrong with you people!?!

De 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

Take that and smoke it on your barbies!

Do you think the Lord was kidding when He said: What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (Mark 10:9)? Here’s the answer, NO, He was not kidding; now what?

From the Australian Bureau of Statistics the crude divorce rate in Australia was 2.3 per 1000 in 2007, from the excel document provided they state as a comparison that in 2006 the crude divorce rate was 3.6 per 1000. According to this site the Australian and US divorce rates (as a percentage in 2002) were different by 0.2%. Why not work on fixing the divorce rate in your own country instead of bashing someone elses.

The Deuteronomy verse applies to adultery, which is relevant to the WBC because they don't believe in divorce. Funnily enough according to the Bible the very verse they quote is actually grounds for getting a divorce as well. They are basing their divorce opinions most likely on Matthew 5:31-32 which actually contradicts Deuteronomy 24:1 which basically says that a man can divorce his wife "if he finds something objectionable about her", gives a pretty broad range of reasons for divorce for at least a man there.

As for Mark 10:9, that is just the same as the verse from Matthew that I mentioned, except with the "adultery" part removed. So which one is it? Do we listen to Deuteronomy, which gives really broad grounds, Matthew which gives a single ground, or Mark which gives no grounds?

ABORTION

This may shock some of you, alright maybe only the ones that have their heads in the sand, but abortion is legal in all circumstances even when a reason is not given.

That’s right dear friends; when you live in Australia you can fornicate your brains out and when you’re done with all your filth, just kill that child that occurred because of your nastiness!

You don’t mess with the matters of the womb…at the end of the day it is still murder. You killed that child…their blood is on your hands! You are murderers plain and simple.

John8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Firstly, in Australia abortion is a State, not a Federal issue. The only consitancy throughout Australia is that abortion is legal when circumstances arise where the health of the mother is at risk. The only state where you can argue that abortion is legal with no questions asked is in Victoria up to 24 weeks (thus the rubbish pouring out of Danny Nalliah's mouth) and it is also legal in the ACT. In NSW and WA it is legal only for health issues surrounding the mother, economic circumstances, fetal defects, mental health issues, rape and apparently social factors and also in WA up to 20 weeks. In SA, NT, and Tasmania the law does not allow abortion for economic and social factors. SA allows abortion for those factors up to 23 weeks. Finally Queensland, which has the strictest abortion laws in the country does not allow an abortion for fetal defects, the only exception is if the baby would die soon after birth anyway.

Each state has other requirements like mandatory counselling in WA, to the abortion must be performed in a hospital and be approved by two physicians (SA).

Seriously, it takes 5 minutes to even do the most basic search on the subject.

PROSTITUTION

In Queensland, private sex work and prostitution in a brothel are legal; however, unlicensed brothels and massage parlors used for prostitution are strictly prohibited….oh now you pretend to have a standard! You aren’t fooling anyone!

In New South Wales, prostitution is legal except near churches, schools, hospitals and similar venues. Does anyone else see the big elephant standing in the middle of the room here? Anyone….anyone? You upside down people think that if you keep it from the eyes of church-goers and children that the Lord can’t see you? Oh, how totally wrong you are!

Hebrews 4:13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

What idiocy we see here. In Phelps' world there wouldn't be prostitution possibly. That's assuming that his secret sex stopping police aren't corrupt or anything. If the crime world has taught us anything it's that no matter what you do you will still have crime, even in the most puritanical society that you could conceive of.

The fact is that in Queensland has a standard, and it would work a hell of a lot better then a WBC "standard". We know that organised crime will find a way to take control of illegal business, just look at the US during Prohibition, and they have far fewer standards then the Queensland government would.

I honestly would have thought that they would have mentioned SA here. Just to clarify, wheras our interstate counterparts have a vague idea of what should be done we don't. Essentially the police ignore the law regarding prostitution unless the brothels do something illegal that isn't prostitution and then they do something. It's all because we have a large enough section of parliament who want to keep it illegal and the Rann government doesn't want to revisit the issue.

Until last year WA had a strange situation where the brothels were located in certain places with the tacit approval of the police, then they passed legislation that decriminalised it.

Your "big elephant" only seems to apply to those who believe in a God. What a stupid elephant. Then again this is the WBC, what do you expect?

ADOPTION

Fags are allowed to adopt children in the Australian Capitol Territory and Western Australia. Stepparent adoption is allowed in Tasmania….um…..ok!?! There are still certain provinces in Australia that don’t allow same-sex couples to adopt children….it won’t be long before that will change! These evil beasts aren’t satisfied until everyone bows down to their disgusting lusts!

Isaiah 1:4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.

Firstly, we don't have provinces, we have states and territories. Get it right, we aren't Canada.

Second, I can see that you seem to be talking about SA (NT is no apart from "exceptional circumstances"). Of course you are, since we are backwards land. We must be some sort of ideal state for you, if only we weren't part of that fag loving rest of Australia right?

And why shouldn't it change? I don't see the problem at hand, and I think that it is wrong that we aren't doing something about it here in SA. Many of the other states have laws that allow adoption of some sort or another, so why shouldn't we?

By the sounds of this it seems that WBC believes that gay people are also paedophiles, I had no idea. I thought paedophiles were paedophiles.

Bible quote wise I'm guessing that they consider us to be Judah, the nation that the verse is referring to.

So we've reached the end of this first page of filth, just four more to go. Part 2 may be found here.