Here’s an excerpt from a book i’m working on.
People should really think about what “Homosexual Agenda” implies. It’s all about SEX. Just SEX.
Chapter 9
FABULOUS! Just fabulous...
For a lesson in the corruption of language, doublespeak and how it is used by Leftists to ‘frame,’ control and politicize issues to their benefit, no topic can hold a candle to homosexuality. So pervasive have ‘gay issues’ become that not even the lowly car commercial is safe from their influence. But before we go full-bore into how destructive the issue has become for society, lets establish a baseline.
Homosexuality is about sex. A particular kind of sex, IE sex with a person of the same gender, but ‘sex’ none the less. It is a simple definition and concept that anyone can understand: Males having sexual relations with other males and females having sex with other females. Here’s a topic that really ‘is’ (pun intended) just about sex!
Homosexuality has existed in the human and animal kingdoms since there have been humans and animals. There are those who argue it is genetic (best known recently as the Lady Gaga ‘born that way’ argument) and those who believe it to be based in environmental/societal concerns. All the major religions of the world consider it wrong/sinful for various reasons, while other belief systems take differing positions regarding the practice. Same goes for the general public where some people are accepting and others are not.
Regardless of personal or religious beliefs and an endless barrage of propaganda from all sides, there is one basic fact that seem to get lost in all the drama. Historically, the number of homosexuals in the world has always hovered in the single digits. There are some claims that it’s higher (usually proffered by agenda driven homosexual advocacy groups) but the most widely accepted figures put the total homosexual population traditionally around 3-5%.
From the earliest days of recorded history, homosexuality has been a known and recognized aspect of both the human condition and society at large. The Bible spoke against it, ancient Greece and Rome openly accepted it, Victorians publicly suppressed but privately condoned it and modern Hollywood/the mainstream media glamourize and promote it across the globe. Christians believe homosexuals can ‘go straight’ if they choose to and Muslims just kill them outright, aside for their strangely contradictory and historical fondness for ‘dancing boys’ (read that ‘male child sexual abuse victims’)of course.
So what’s the problem? What two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is none of greater society’s business right? Here’s the problem...
“The love that dares not speak it’s name” refuses to shut up – and this time Andrew Klavan has nothing to do with it.
Once upon a time, homosexuals just wanted to be left alone to do the voodoo that they do. By and large greater society was pretty accommodating of that arrangement and grew more so over time. So called ‘sodomy laws’ were stricken from the books. Open hostility, both verbal and physical, lessened by the year. Homosexuals went about their public business just like Mr. and Mrs. Straight and many began to ‘come out of the closet.’
No, the path wasn’t all wine and roses and no, not everyone was OK with ‘open’ gays in society as a whole. However when you only constitute 5% of the population it is not logical or rational to expect the other 95% to suddenly abandon all their core beliefs and opinions and just adopt, or even accept yours wholesale. When you constitute 5% of the population, it is not rational to expect that society, structured around a 95% straight population from the very inception of ‘society’ as a concept, will suddenly rearrange itself to accommodate you. Except that’s exactly what happened and that’s where the problem really began.
Lets talk about sex, baby (with apologies to Salt n’ Peppa)!
The core concept of this book, the lack of critical thought in modern society, is also the main reason that ‘homosexual issues’ have reached the point that they have and until society as a whole starts critically thinking about the entire subject, matters will only grow more convoluted. Along with critical thought, frank and rational discussion on the matter has likewise been non-existent. But why? Read on... but remember Rule 1. Words mean things whether a Leftist wants them to or not.
The biggest hindrance to critical thought by society at large centers around the way people have been programmed by books, articles, music, TV shows and movies to ‘think’ about homosexuality. The fact is, homosexuality is not two men driving down the Pacific Coast Highway in a new convertible with the top down. It’s not two women sitting at a cafe overlooking the Mediterranean. It’s not some kid with multi-colored hair wearing ‘skinny jeans’ and a black t-shirt texting his ‘boyfriend’ with a look of longing on his face or any of the thousands of images AstroTurfed across the media to show everyone how ‘normal’ it is...”See? They’re just like us! We do those things too!”
How embracing of homosexuality would the public be if those TV commercials went on a little longer to show the literal homosexuality. Think Car Company X would make a lot of sales from the straight world showing Biff and Brad laid out across that big, expensive hood in a 69? Think the ‘Drink-a-lotta Coffie Company’ will see profits soar with images of Ellen fisting Rosie while she’s bent over the balcony rail? Or how about when Color-kid’s ‘boyfriend’ gets that text message saying the AIDS test came back positive?
As we established at the outset, Homosexuality is about one thing and only one thing: sex between members of the same gender. That’s it. When one thinks about the subject critically, it follows that you cannot have homosexuality without the sex. A so-called ‘homosexual’ can think and have fantasies about homosexual sex all he or she likes like but until they actually ‘have’ homosexual sex, they are merely celibate. Said person can be attracted to a same-gender person with a passion rivaling that of Rhett Butler and Scarlet O’Harah, but until they actually physically participate in a sexual act with a same-gendered person, they are celibate with an active imagination.
This of course assumes that the person has not had sex with a person of the opposite gender. In that case they are heterosexual with a fantasy about the same sex. And what of ‘romantic feelings’ towards someone of the opposite sex? A person may have all the romantic feelings toward a person of the same sex they like. Again, without physical sex, you still have celibacy. Call it unrequited love, call it whatever textbook or PC term you wish, but without the physical sexual component you can’t honestly call it homosexuality. Words mean things.
Yes, I can imagine what you are thinking. Aside from thinking I’m nuts, you are also wondering how I can make such claims when the American Psychological Association, American Medical Association and every other official ‘support group’ group in the world says the exact opposite? First things first. Let me ask you the following and think critically before you answer because you are in fact about to answer your own question. Yes, it’s long winded but The Orwellian Ministry of Homosexual Love wasn’t built in a day either.
Example 1: All your life you have wanted to be and suddenly decide that because of this desire that you are now in fact an astronaut. You have never flown in a plane, don’t have a degree in aeronautics, astrophysics or any other degree that would help qualify you to be an astronaut. You are deathly afraid of heights. You apply to NASA and are rejected. The Russians or China won’t take you either, but you still say that you are an astronaut. Are you an Astronaut?
Example 2: Since the time you went to a museum at age 3 you have had an overwhelming desire to be a famous painter whose works are better than those of DiVinci, Michelangelo and Picasso. You spend your childhood painting all manner of pictures, get enrolled in a special high school for the arts, then obtain a masters degree later in life. You have put every fiber of your being into being a greater artist than the classical masters. At your first public show the critics roundly pan your work and the public thinks they have better art hanging on their refrigerator doors. Yet you claim they are all blind and can’t appreciate true greatness. Over the years your work only gets worse. Are you the greatest artist of all time?
Example 3: You always had a great interest in books and have read hundreds. One day a friend says you should write one of your own. Thinking it a great idea you get a computer, download a word processor and begin the next great American novel. Day after day you write, cut, write something different, cut, write more and cut. Your family and friends offer you constant encouragement and believe in what you are doing. This goes on for several years with you writing, erasing, getting a different idea and writing something else over and over, making no real progress. Have you written a book?
Example 4: Times are tough in the Obama economy and your family, like many others is having to do without a lot since you got laid off. As the days go by with no hope that you’ll be rehired at your old job and rejection letters pile up from all the resumes you continue to send out, you begin to grow desperate. Then your daughter is diagnosed with a serious disease that will require ongoing treatment, lots of medications and be very expensive – but you have no insurance. You feel the weight of the world on you and the stress and desperation grow by the day. Soon you begin thinking about pursuing illegal activities to get money. One day a friend says you can make a lot of money quickly by selling Meth but you aren’t sure you want to break the law. You meet him at his house where a 2 bound bag of whiteish powder sits on a table. He tells you to take it and will give you 30% profit on the sale. Are you a drug dealer?
OK class, lets take this one at a time.
Example 1: Every little kid wants to be an astronaut some day, or at least they used to. But without the skills, training and physical/mental ability to be an astronaut; to say nothing of having a job at a space agency, you are not an astronaut. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one. All the desire in the world will not make it so.
Example 2: In this example you displayed tremendous dedication and did everything within your power to realize your dream, but it wasn’t to be. Again, ‘desire’ was a key factor here allowing you to spend years chasing your dream, but while people may have appreciated your dedication, they hated your art for whatever reason. Because of that, you will never be the greatest artist in the world.
Example 3: Desire? Check. Dedication? Check. Supportive friends and family? Check. Ability to finish the job? Nope. For whatever reason you were unable to bring your ideas together. You did everything right and had all the support in the world, but ultimately did not finish a complete book.
Example 4: Intense pressure the likes of which you wouldn’t wish on your worst enemy and it kept getting worse as the days went by. Suddenly you are presented with an answer that could quickly and easily solve your current problems but may open you up to even more. Standing at that table you are not yet a drug dealer because of the simple fact that you have not yet sold any drugs. You know about it, thought about it, agonized over it, ‘questioned’ whether or not you should do it, even taken steps toward actually doing it. But despite all that, you still haven’t actually ‘done it.’
If you have never planted a seed or trimmed a bush regardless of how much you thought about doing it, are you a gardener?
If you never stepped foot on a boat regardless of how many books you read about it or how many Caribbean Island fantasies you’ve had, are you a sailor?
If you have listened to 1,000 Heavy Metal CDs and are real good at ‘Guitar Hero’ on the Playstation 3, but never actually performed music on a real instrument or have an enormous fanbase, are you a rock star?
Now...
Since you can be none of these widely varied things based on just your ‘questioning, feelings and desire,’ regardless of how strong they or the support of friends and family may be, without also having/doing/etc. the physical component relevant to each of them; the completed book; the job at NASA and associated degrees; actual hands-on work in a garden or the actual sale of Meth; why on earth is it logical, rational or realistic to think that you can be a homosexual without the sex? You can’t fantasize or magically think your way into employment, fame, a college degree or anything else short of a straight jacket. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one. Even if you really really really want it to be and get sexually aroused thinking about it.
Now lets back up a bit and discuss the ‘logical and rational’ aspects of 95% vs. 5%. In what other cases would society completely restructure to satisfy the desires, not ‘rights,’ (because neither the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution accounts for a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g based on sex...) ‘desires’ or ‘fantasies’ of such a small minority?
There is certainly more than 5% of the population living together whether male/male, female/female or male/female in a platonic manner to cut costs, due to common interests, jobs etc. Do they have a ‘right’ to tax breaks because they may get along really really really well? How about if they are ‘friends with benefits?’ Should that then make a difference?
Plenty of heterosexual couples participate in all manner of ‘alternative’ sex practices. Should we grant them special rights and privileges because Mary likes to dress up in thigh-high leather boots and John wants her to spank him with a riding crop? Should they be taxed any differently than Sam and Sue next door who only fly their freak flag missionary-style in the dark? How about Jean down the block who has a rather large assortment of battery powered devices to keep her company. Should she have a different set of laws governing her that Father Chris across the street who is the very model of the sexless priest?
Or how about this. Is it logical or rational to have a special set of rules and laws to govern people who scrapbook? How about collecting shoes? Fishermen? Hunters? Motorcycle enthusiasts? Dog lovers? Each of these groups has ‘desires’ and ‘strong feelings’ for their niche in question. Billy has loved dogs all his life and Paul spends hours in the garage fawning over his motorcycle. They are all heavily ‘emotionally invested’ in their particular subjects and each constitute more than 5% of the population so what’s the difference between all these people and homosexuals when it comes to special rights and privileges?
The difference has become known as ‘the homosexual lobby.’
Have you ever once seen or heard of Billy, Paul, Jean, Sam or Mary marching in the streets demanding special rights to accommodate their sexual/non-sexual even or electro-sexual preferences? No. In fact, Father Chris is probably hearing confession from John because while Mary really gets into the whole BDSM thing, he has some guilt to work out. He certainly isn’t dressed up in assless pants and nipple clamps marching round the town square singing “I’m here, I drink beer and I want you to spank me.”
Straights march in parades to Celebrate the 4th of July, to honor veterans, or to bring attention to breast cancer. Yes, homosexuals participate in them too and more power to them. The difference is that there are no sex-based straight parades. Ever hear of a ‘Straight Pride’ parade? No. But there are ‘Homosexual Pride’ parades in every major and even smaller cities around the globe to bring attention to... what exactly? Homosexual ‘rights?’ Homosexuals do not Constitutionally have any different or special rights than straights do so that can’t be it. ‘Homosexual issues’ or ‘Homosexual ‘Pride’ itself?
Now in the interest of full disclosure, I will admit that the first time I had sex I was damn proud of myself and although I may have felt like having a parade down Main Street to memorialize the experience, common sense and the fact that I probably couldn’t get a permit won the day, thus no parade was held. Sadly, the homosexual ‘community’ revels in their parades and is very proud to let you, your 95-year-old grandmother and your 5 year-old children know that they are “Here,” “Queer” and all us straight types need to “Get used to it.”
Yes, Yes and No.
Since 95% of the population really isn’t interested in how deeply homosexuals can find their collective way into the “Out’ door, or what small and fuzzy animals they may find along the way, the homosexual lobby has resorted to (tell me where you’ve heard this one before) ‘hate crimes’ legislation and ‘hate speech’ laws to force the straights of the world to “get used to it.”
Whatever happened to claims of “We just want to love who we want to love?” Obviously that was an outright lie and the perfect emotionally argued way to get the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent. In a masterfully played example of incrementalism, we now have the whole camel in our 95% collective lap. Despite making decades of progress in a matter of years thanks to the non-stop media barrage of ‘It’s OK’ messaging throughout the media and school curriculum, the homosexual lobby had to have everything they wanted their way ‘now.’
Most of us in the straight world really have no interest in listening to people running around like a bunch of hormonal teenagers screaming about who, what, where, when, why and how they’re gettin’ it on. Because remember, that’s the bottom line here. The sex itself.
Hate crimes, AIDS and propaganda pieces.
As we have discussed, from a Constitutional standpoint, there is equal protection under the law, so logically, how can it follow that a straight person assaulting a homosexual should receive a different punishment than a homosexual attacking a straight person? Any such law is obviously unconstitutional. Yet hate crimes laws pertaining to homosexuals have been passed across the country. Put on your critical thinking caps and ponder the following statements:
Your Honor, I:
1: … assaulted him/her because he/she wears funny clothes!
2: … assaulted him/her because he/she drives a blue car!
3: … assaulted him/her because he/she likes reading classic works of literature!
4: … assaulted him/her because he/she likes music that I don’t!
5: … assaulted him/her because he/she smells bad!
6: … assaulted him/her because he/she is a flaming homo!
Now, ask yourself:
Should the attacker be punished more severely because of his victim’s choice of style?
Should the attacker be punished more severely because of his victim’s choice of car color?
Should the attacker be punished more severely because of his victim’s choice of reading material?
Should the attacker be punished more severely because of his victim’s taste in music?
Should the attacker be punished more severely because of his victim’s lack of hygiene?
Should the attacker be punished more severely because of his victim’s choice in sex practices?
Is their any functional difference in assaulting a person because he smells bad and assaulting them over private (since sex in public of any type is illegal) sex practices? In each example person the person is just as injured, both physically and mentally.
In rebutting this argument, the homosexual often pulls a unique version of the race card claiming that the argument is meaningless and that homosexuals are like blacks in the 60s fighting for ‘equality.’
First, any logical argument that can be presented is not ‘meaningless.’ Claiming it is and refusing to prove otherwise merely dodges the issue. Second, Blacks cannot change their skin color (Michael Jackson jokes aside) but a ‘homosexual’ can be celibate or partake in heterosexual sex. Third, Civil rights legislation had nothing to do with the sex practices of blacks in America. Rosa Parks didn’t sit at the front of the bus, nor was MLK assassinated because they wanted their choices in the bedroom to grant them tax breaks or other special privileges and to compare homosexual ‘rights’ to the fight for equality by black Americans is not only a false choice but patently offensive to everyone who believes in racial equality. ‘Homosexual’ is not a race. It is a sex practice. Nothing more.
Taking a trip down a liberal slippery slope to madness, what if a straight black man assaults a homosexual white man? What if a straight white man assaults a homosexual black man? How about a straight white man assaulting another straight white man? How about two homosexual black men or two homosexual white men? How about a woman of undetermined sexuality assaulting a straight black man and a homosexual white man at the same time?
Hate crime laws by their existence require that the value of one ‘class’ of person must have a greater value than another. So which is it? Are gay black men more valuable in the eyes of the law than a straight white man? Or is a straight white woman held in higher regard than a straight black man? Or any other combination?
Special rights and health concerns
When the AIDS epidemic began to make national news in the 1980s, homosexual advocacy groups began their rise to power by attacking the Reagan administration (who knew only slightly less about AIDS than the doctors and researchers of the time) claiming that it was not a ‘homosexual disease’ and that heterosexuals were equally at risk. Nearly 30 years later, doctors and researchers are still trying to get a handle on the disease despite hundreds of billions of dollars in research – ironically the vast majority of worldwide funding materializing from ‘heartless’ ‘homosexual hating,’ ‘Bible thumping’ Republican presidents and administrations. Even liberal icon Bono from the rock group U2 admitted President GW Bush did more for the cause of fighting AIDS in Africa than anyone.
What did not materialize however was a widespread infection of the heterosexual population. Thanks to all that research, we know know that there are 3 main vectors to contract AIDS. Blood to blood/bodily fluid contact with an infected person; transfusion/transplant with an infected blood/organ supply; and high-risk behavior (homosexual anal/oral sex and sharing IV drug needles). The odds of a heterosexual contracting AIDS from another heterosexual when neither has participated in the aforementioned ‘high risk’ behavior or received a blood transfusion is statistically zero.
This brings up some questions that require critical thought and frank discussion.
Why then do homosexually lobby claims that ‘it’s not a homosexual disease’ persist? Why are they given any credence when years of medical research, facts and statistics prove the exact polar opposite?
Since AIDS is a killer disease contracted mainly through high risk homosexual sex, why is homosexuality, the primary means of passing along the infection, promoted as a perfectly acceptable ‘lifestyle choice’ in the media and more importantly to schoolchildren? What manner of medical ethics can possibly justify it?
In 2011 a straight heterosexual male was diagnosed with AIDS following an organ transplant from a donor who had tested negative weeks prior to the transplant procedure, then had homosexual sex between the test and the actual transplant. In the 80s, Ryan White, a young American boy was infected with AIDS and died following a blood transfusion. Between the two events, many heterosexuals across the globe contracted, now suffer from, or have died due to AIDS infected blood donated by homosexuals. Why are liberal, Leftist and homosexual advocacy groups actively fighting (and winning in court) the ‘right’ for homosexuals to donate blood when the disease can take months or in some cases even years to show up on blood tests?
Many such questions should be not only asked but discussed vigorously in the public forum and the halls of government. But they are paid lip service at best and then quietly dropped with no action short of calls for better testing. Why? Once again the answer can be found in the propaganda spread by the homosexual lobby and it’s cries of ‘homophobia.’
The actual definition of a phobia is a ‘fear.’ Ergo ‘homophobia’ literally means ‘fear of the same’ or ‘fear of sameness.’ The homosexual lobby has perverted this word to mean ‘hatred or discrimination toward homosexuals’ along with ‘fear of homosexuals’. But remember, words mean things. Again, lets address the issue critically.
Should people of all sexual preferences fear a potentially deadly blood supply created because legislators fear being branded ‘homophobic?’ More on this in a bit.
Should parents abandon their responsibility to protect their children from a potentially life-ending disease to bestow protective ‘rights’ on the very people who are factually, medically, statistically and mostly responsible for spreading that disease?
Should those parents and others who speak against the main method of transfer of a potentially life-ending disease be prosecuted under hate crimes legislation because the vast majority people factually, medically, statistically and mostly responsible for spreading that disease get their feelings hurt by it?
These and in truth ‘any’ discussion that does not cast homosexuals, homosexual practices or homosexual (insert damn near anything here) is intermediately pounced upon by the homosexual lobby as a aforementioned act of homophobia, bigotry and intolerance. Is there a logical reason to assume that 95% of the population ‘hates’ homosexuals? No. Is there a logical reason to believe that 95% of the population is bigoted toward homosexuals? No. Is there a logical reason to believe that by encouraging an increase in high risk homosexual sex, even when condoms are employed, that AIDS is somehow less dangerous? No more so than jumping out of an aircraft with a parachute that has a known failure to open rate of several percent, depending on make and model.
Oh? You say that’s a stupid argument? Really? How many homosexuals if handed a parachute and told, “Hey Bill, there’s about a 9% chance that this thing won’t open and you’re gonna impact the ground at well over 100 miles per hour. It’s already happened thousands of times and there’s a lot of dead people. You are certainly going to die it the chute malfunctions,” would strap it on and take the dive?
The only difference here is that the government would shut down the parachute manufacturer and sue theme into oblivion, while in real life the government sues the guy who gives the warning about the danger under discrimination and hate crime statutes.
Unfortunately this isn’t a poorly chosen joke. As we speak people around the world really are sued and/or prosecuted for hate speech because they tell the truth about the dangers of homosexual sex and AIDS.
In the months following the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, chaplains have been instructed to ‘get right’ with homosexual rights and abandon their religious beliefs and teachings concerning homosexuality or ‘get out.’ Likewise, soldiers regardless of rank are being ‘reeducated’ to accept it or join the Chaplains in the unemployment line. (Side note: Imagine the literal billions of dollars worth of leadership, training and experience have just been sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.) Will Muslims soldiers and their Imams get a waiver due to their ‘strongly held’ religious beliefs? Many Christians and their lawyers are waiting for that answer as the Obama has been strangely silent regarding that particular subject.
Great! And IMHO well written - hitting the bullseye in every way.
Except one:
5% of the population is not correct, more like roughly 2%. I used to have all that stuff at my fingertips or at least findable but all files are off my computer for a while, have to deal with comp. problems. Here’s a few links about actual percentages; keeping in mind the numbers are fluid because many people decide after years of not being homoseuxal that they are, and many decide that they are not.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/two.php
While homosexuals claim they make up 10% of the population, the reality is closer to 1-2%.
While homosexuals claim they make up 10% of the population, the reality is closer to 1-2 percent A NEWLY RELEASED REPORT from the Centers for Disease Control’s National Center for Health Statistics reveals that only 2.3% of the population considers themselves homosexual. The statistics come from a 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and are based on 12,571 interviews with men and women ages 15-44 years of age. (The findings were reported in WorldNetDaily, September 16, 2005).
According to this survey, only 2.3% of the males surveyed considered themselves to be homosexuals; 1.8% considered themselves to be bisexuals. Among men ages 18-44, 92% said they were attracted “only to females” and 3.9% “mostly” to females. Among women, 86% said they were attracted only to males, and 10% “mostly” to males.
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/the-numbers-game-what-percentage-of-the-population-is-gay/
Scroll down the article, here is just a sample of info:
Bell/Weinberg 1970 – < 2% total M and F (ratings of siblings)
Cameron/Ross 1975-78 – 3.1% M, 3.9% F
FRI 1983 – 5.4% M, 3.6% F (4,340 respondents)
Trocki 1988-89 – 3% M, 2% F
NCHS 1988-91 – ² 3.5% M (over 50,000 respondents)
Catania/NABS 1992 – 2% M, 2% F (4% in urban areas; 10,600 respondents)
Billy/Battelle 1993 – ³ 1.1% M
Hate crime laws by their existence require that the value of one ‘class’ of person must have a greater value than another. So which is it? Are gay black men more valuable in the eyes of the law than a straight white man? Or is a straight white woman held in higher regard than a straight black man? Or any other combination?
Fascinating. I think this argument needs to take place in the public sphere. I hate that we are too politically correct to have something like a prime time Firing Line show with issues like this, seriously debated.
We had a horrendous massacre take place here in our little 'hood some years back on Halloween. It got some national attention. A swarm of young blacks (teens to early 20s) attacked a couple of white female college students walking from a popular Haunted House in a quaint residential neighborhood (upper middle class, but surrounded by lower middle class or worse neighborhoods). 20-40 "youths" piled on to these innocent girls (after first throwing pumpkins, lemons, and insults against whites at them), ripping their earrings out of their skin, beating them, kicking them, stealing their property as an afterthought, and one youth beating them over the head with a skateboard even after the board broke.
Their lives were saved by an older Good Samaritan (who happened to be black, and who himself got beaten for stepping in). One girl was studying photography but she lost so much of her vision she had to give up her dream. The few perps who got caught, got house arrest and very light sentences. they were still able to be on their school's athletic teams. Their parents cried that they were "good kids."
We here in the neighborhood felt that "hate crime" designation was important for fairness only. We knew that if a mob of white youths attempted to murder innocent black girls walking past, this would be national news for months, and the perps would still be behind bars today. This would be a very racist crime.
It's all turned around when the perps are of a protected minority. I agree with you that the facts about the victim should not matter, but they DO, emotionally, and that is the way life is. Why else would murder be dropped to 2nd degree if the murderer killed his cheating wife, or the guy who raped his 13-year-old daughter? Emotion still plays a part in our legal system. We just are not robots. But I like your argument very much.