Was Zimmerman gay-bashed?

Let us suppose that Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman because he assumed (based on the prompting of his friend Rachel Jeantel) that Zimmerman was following him because he wanted to have sex with him.

While I have no way of knowing whether Jeantel’s testimony is true, if it is, then isn’t the question of whether Zimmerman was a victim of gay-bashing worth raising? This is not to say that he was gay, but if Martin assumed he was, and attacked him for that reason, well? One does not have to be gay to get gay-based.

So why isn’t the question being explored?

Might it be because gay-bashing does not fit the narrative?

MORE: What creeps me out the most about the Zimmerman case is the way the basic and fundamental question of who started it is regarded as irrelevant.

Exactly what I said more than a year ago:

Who started it? and Who was the aggressor? — these questions lie at the essence of self defense. The people who don’t want “who started it” to matter see the Zimmerman case as a perfect foot in the door. To them it really does not matter who started it, nor should it matter.

And they want the law changed to reflect the new reality which is at war with reality.

If Zimmerman is found to have been attacked and was justified in defending himself, that is the entire problem.

We are living in a new era and we need new laws.

It’s something any school child ought to able to understand.

Unfortunately, we have a new generation raised in a loathsome educational culture which dictates that it doesn’t matter who started it — one in which the innocent and the guilty are morally indistinguishable. Those who buy into that sort of thinking (and there are now a lot of them) believe that whether George Zimmerman was attacked is irrelevant, and if he had fought back in any way, he would have been the moral equivalent of his attacker. That, of course, is standard public school doctrine — without even factoring in race.  Their equation reduces guns to being the enemy in an otherwise perfect world of conflict resolution, where by definition there are no villains or enemies.

No wonder such people want gun control. And oppose self defense.

And no wonder it is impossible to to have a rational discussion with them. I have tried.