Returning Hate for Hate

Geez.... I gotta stop reading this fringe stuff. This is a piece of crap that I read while out in the blogosphere.

The Gay Lobby has been exploiting the tragic death of Matthew Shepherd ever since it occurred that night in Laramie in 1998.

Somehow, the powers that be at Valley High don’t have a problem violating their own profanity and vulgarity policy(page 34). Yes you can bet that my son wouldn’t be allowed to wear his True Story of Jack Schitt T-shirt to school at Valley but if you are “providing a teaching opportunity for diversity and acceptance,” of the Gay Agenda and of course teaching a valuable lesson about “hate crimes” like the one the Gay Lobby’s unintended martyr fell victim to, profanity and vulgarity are perfectly okay.

The truth is that Matthew Shepherd’s death was a brutal killing at the hands of a couple of vile shreds of human debris -- it wasn’t a “hate crime” because there is no such thing. Muddled and confused liberal thinking that presuppose that one person’s death is worth more than another’s because of certain arbitrary characteristics and the circumstances under which they were killed are what gave rise to “hate crime” legislation. Ever hear about the death of a heterosexual white male being branded a “hate crime”? Didn’t think so. But because white male Matthew Shepherd preferred his sex anally with a male, his death is supposed to be worth more than another white male that prefers vaginal sex with a woman. (source)

Let me dissect this a bit, but only a bit. I have to weigh how much energy I want to spend on this.

“The Gay Lobby has been exploiting the tragic death of Matthew Shepherd ever since it occured that night in Laramie in 1998.”

Actually, we (the “Gay Lobby” as you like to put it - why do they always say that - like there are a bunch of gay people down in the lobby or something, or that there actually is such a thing as a lobby with a gay sexual orientation?) finally had had enough of years and years and years of gay bashing that had gone unreported. What happened to Matthew was very common place. These crimes against “queers” were dismissed 98% of the time by people and law enforcement authorities. Matthew’s death was a second Stonewall of sorts; we finally hit the breaking point of hate crimes. There is a big difference in “exploiting” an issue, and taking a stick and drawing a line in the sand saying, “IT STOPS HERE!” Did hate crimes against gays stop with Matthew? Of course not. But what spawned out of that action was an entire network targeting hate crimes. Much of this awareness has also happened with such initiatives as The Larmie Project (which is the point of Mr. Bowers’ disgust), many websites discussing what happened to Matthew, and of course, the Matthew Shepard Foundation.

“But because white male Matthew Shepherd preferred his sex anally with a male, his death is supposed to be worth more than another white male that prefers vaginal sex with a woman.”

A bit hateful, aren’t we Mr. Bowers? Perhaps Steve Bowers should consider joining the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas; you know, the people who run the godhatesfags.com website (I refuse to link to them), used to protest at gay funerals but got tired of that (no press) and started protesting at military funerals because “America is tolerant of homosexuality” (more press)? I’m sure he would fit right in.

And by the way, Matthew’s last name is spelled “Shepard”, not “Shepherd”. Mr. Bowers, you owe him that much to get it right. I won’t even make the point that many straight couples prefer anal sex to “regular” sex. Don’t believe me? Do a little bit of scholarly research and find your own stats on this. Well, ok, I made the point. And why is it even a point that Matthew Shepard was a white male?

“The truth is that Matthew Shepherd’s death was a brutal killing at the hands of a couple of vile shreds of human debris -- it wasn’t a ‘hate crime’ because there is no such thing. Muddled and confused liberal thinking that presuppose that one person’s death is worth more than another’s because of certain arbitrary characteristics and the circumstances under which they were killed are what gave rise to ‘hate crime’ legislation. Ever hear about the death of a heterosexual white male being branded a ‘hate crime’?”

No, I’ve never heard of the death of a heterosexual white male being branded as a “hate crime”. You know why? BECAUSE GAYS DON’T GO AROUND BEATING THE LIFE OUT OF STRAIGHT WHITE MALES WHO HATE US. Maybe we should. I don’t know. Hate is a funny thing. It’s like a sword; it can cut both ways.

“Certainly the story of a 13-year-old anally-raped to death by a couple of sadistic bastards merits at least as much, if not more, attention by people concerned about ‘hate crimes’ than the ‘hate crime’ celebrated with a play intended to shame people into buying into the Gay Agenda. But we all know that it’s not about ‘hate crime’ at all -- it’s about the advancement of the Gay Agenda.”

This is the only valid point Mr. Bowers makes in his entire diatribe. I remember that story. A 13 year old child was raped by two men who were gay. This was several years ago. In my opinion Bowers is right, they were “sadistic bastards” that deserved whatever the law dished out to them. But, was that a “hate crime”? Steve Bowers is right that the story should have received the press it deserved. I heard about it, but it wasn’t out there in our faces like the story of what happened to Matthew, and it should have been.

Hate crimes can happen towards anyone of a given group. They are not about the gay community. The old adage that “all crimes are hate crimes” is crap. What was the impetus of the crime? The impetus of a hate crime is just that; hate. Was the crime motivated by hatred towards the target of the crime? Did the two men target the boy out of hatred, or opportunity? They certainly did despicable violence to him. They were certainly depraved animals with no sense of decency.

Hate crime laws target that impetus - the reason they happen in the first place. And if a group of gay men did go around beating the hell out of straight males - white or black - that too would be a hate crime, because they were targeted because they belonged to a group (white straight males) that the gays hated. This is the point so many people miss.

Is it right to return hate for hate? There was a time that I would have said no. But now, with more of the world doing this, the issue if becoming one of debate. A lot of people have been trying to answer this question for a very long time. It’s a process I believe. Israel seems to have little problem returning hate for hate. Israel has changed. I remember a time when Golda Meir was Prime Minister of Israel that the last resort was war. They’ve had more experience at this sort of thing than me, so perhaps they are right?

As Herman Melville put it, “From hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.”

But then what? What do we do after we hate? What do we do with that? Where do we go from there?

In my limited experience on this planet, hate is a pathway to nowhere. There’s nothing you can do with it except, hate more.