- Matthew Shepard was the "poster boy" for something he hadn't suffered.
- The murder was a community-internal matter which had nothing to do with straights.
- Because of the Shepard fraud, straights were made to feel that innocent young gay males were being murdered at a rate deserving a rush job into hate crimes legislation and into other elements of the gay agenda.
What's wrong with this picture?
You jumped a logical step. Here's the logic, assuming the March of Dimes raises funds for polio:your position seems to be that if the March Of Dimes had an ad with a kid who didn't actually have polio, then polio clearly doesn't exist, never existed, and wasn't worth worrying about.
- Polio is rare, but still exists.
- The March of Dimes collects money for polio; some of this money goes to the disease and some goes to operating expenses.
- If the March of Dimes solicits money for polio by putting up a poster child that does not have the disease, they are perpetrating a fraud.
- Polio may still exist, but people have the right to refuse money to the March of Dimes and to get them prosecuted for fraud.
- Because of the fraud, doubts are raised about the prevalence of polio, since the charity had to find a fake victim to drum up donations.
That last one is why the media hasn't touched "The Book of Matt"; if people learn that Matthew Shephard was not a victim of "homophobia", but murdered by a fellow GLBT drug addict to whom he was selling, they will wonder exactly how prevalent "homophobic hate crime" is since the activist movement had to find a fake victim to drum up support for their cause.
The defendant was bisexual and had had sex with Matthew. That alone qualifies him as GLBT. (That would be the "B" portion.) He was well known in the gay bars of Laramie. This was a community-internal matter.Show me where the defendant identifies as gay, I missed that. It's not relevant, but you state it with such certainty that I would like to see it.
Everything about Matthew Shepard was lie. So the question is why did the gay activists have to lie? If hate crime against gay males is so prevalent, there should be a large number of available real cases for activists to exploit. Why create a lie?Even if absolutely everything about the Matthew Shepard murder was a lie, up to and including the fact that Matthew Shepard actually is alive and owns a Baskin Robbins franchise in Portland, it doesn't change the reason for gay activism regarding attacks on gay people.
The only answer to that is that gay males are not being murdered just for being gay on a regular basis.
Matthew Shepard was not the body of the problem, he was presented as the picture of it. If he's not what he appeared to be, it doesn't mean that anti-gay hate crime is made up.
See above. If you have to create a fake case, then that sheds doubt on your claims that there are a lot of these cases.
Think of Rosa Parks for a minute. She was an activist, a leader of the NAACP in Alabama. So, she was no innocent lady who was just tired and wanted a seat on the bus. She planned her move; in fact the NAACP planned her move and had her legal defense ready.
Nonetheless, Rosa Parks was the real deal. She was a black woman, living under Jim Crow laws, in a state that made her sit at the back of the bus because, and only because, of her color. So no matter what her motives were, she was indeed arrested for being black and sitting in a "white" seat. She may have been the pre-planned "poster child", but she was still the genuine article.
Matthew Shepard was never the genuine article. He was a gay meth dealer, dealing drugs within the GLBT community. His killer was bisexual, had had sex with him and had bought drugs from him. His killer was well known in local gay bars. His killer pistol-whipped another male on the same night that he killed Shepard and for the same reason: he needed a fix.
There is NO genuine article in any of this. There was no straight "homophobe" who killed Matthew because he was gay. The "gay defense" could have been broken down in a few minutes with the testimony of local bartenders and members of the GLBT community. Then the murder would have been seen for the community-internal matter that it was. However, that would not have served the agenda.
Long before Matthew Shepard, Trev Broudy was attacked by negroes who stole a car in Los Angeles and drive over an hour to find victims in West Hollywood. The most anger the gay community could manage over that was that the district attorney wasn't able to declare it a hate crime despite the victims being white and gay and the perps being black and heterosexual. As it turns out, the criminals went to prison. But more recently in Washington DC we have the case of a straight black male attacking a gay black male outside a DC gay bar and getting prosecuted for battery despite the victim being dead as a result of the attack. That criminal got six months.
If you are legitimately ignorant of the body of crime being committed against gay people then you can be forgiven, if however you are being deliberately blind to it then you are complicit.
Why do you find it ok to lie and make drama for members that number less than 3% of the population? So what if someone got beat up every now and again, its not an excuse to lie and to compare to true civil rights struggles because minorities can't choose what color they are while gays do choose.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|