"Huh, never heard of him"

You must be under 30. His murder was one of the bigger news stories of the late '90s. Not sure why these details are being touted as new news (I'd heard the theory that he'd been killed over drugs before, although I don't recall where or when), though.

Al and leon, I don't want my reasoned rational response to obscure the fact that I think you both are simply miserable shitbags, that you do not, in fact deserve a response, and, all considered, I should probably have left this thread alone content to know that you both will likely die completely alone besides your regrets.

That being said, I read the article and am still convinced that this case has everything to do with homophobia and anti-gay violence. I'm sorry, do normal drug crimes consist of pistol whipping the victim 18 times, publically tying him to a post in the elements and... wait for it... ATTEMPTING TO LIGHT HIM ON FIRE. Jesus Christ! If it was a robbery, couldn't they, oh I don't know... SHOOT HIM. I can't read those guys minds, and I don't know their motives, but how did your pea brains decide that a murder committed in conjunction with a robbery can't also be homophobic? Is it because one of the guys had sex with Matthew Shephard? Do you think that makes him Gay? I mean he's so gay that he denies it, and steadfastly denies he slept with him at all. I'm no psychologist, but I could easily see how a man who occasionally sleeps with men, especially one who is obviously so confused about those actions and his identity, could be violently homophobic.

Stories like these take a life of their own. Rosa Parks, I hate to tell you, wasn't just tired. But they take on those new lives because they express a truth. Matthew Shephard was human, not perfect, but it doesn't mean that his horrific murder wasn't influenced by homophobia. The activists were right to highlight the episode as an extreme but still illustrative of the mistreatment of gay people in America.

Have a nice day. I'd wish you both an STD, but I am reasonably certain that you don't have sex.

What Santa said.

LOOK, AL - here is a locked thread for you to cry about: threadID=1370445

"the mystery remains – not so much why Matthew died, but why the gay community, after almost five decades of campaigning for equal rights, relies so fundamentally on the image of the perfect martyr to represent the cause."
I would probably excise the words "so fundamentally," but something suspects me the author has a point here. How else to explain the (apparently, if Santa's reaction and those cited in the article are anything to go by) volcanic opposition to Jimenez's book?

Matthew Shepard was a man, and attaching causes to individuals always has the danger of sinking the cause if the individual turns out to have been (even slightly) other than originally advertised. But I would suppose that, nowadays at least, the movement for sexual rights and freedoms has built up enough other exemplars and has made enough progress that, even if Matthew Shepard's reputation for complete innocence suffers a few dings and knocks, the movement will still do just fine and will continue to advance apace, both legally and socially. So I'm a little confused about why the reaction against the book would take on this kind of reflexively dismissive form, one that sounds more fearful than confident. I'm not confused about why there would be substantial negative reactions, but I would have expected rather more light than heat in the main, rather than the more-heat-than-light nature of what we appear to be getting.

That being said, I suppose I should understand the mindset somewhat, having come from a region in which, whatever successes may be had or whatever respect may be gained from outsiders, insularity, the need to keep proving ourselves to those outsiders, and a general feeling of having been given a hard lot in life -- not to mention immense personal pride in living in that region (and each of us in our own particular towns and neighborhoods) -- is part of the (damp) air we breathe and the (often hard) water we drink. And when criticism and questioning comes from the outside, the emotions tend to rise -- but more than they should.

I don't have a volcanic opposition to his book. I have a volcanic opposition to people who use the book to portray this as "Not a hate crime." Nothing in the article supports that conclusion, and people that claim it does obviously just want it to be so. The flawed logic, not only of the posters here but for example, the police chief, that concluded that one of the killers had sex with men, therefore was not capable of homophobia is completely laughable.

The only people still disputing Matthew Shepard was a bad guy who deserved to die is the Westboro Baptist Church and whoever wrote this asinine article.

To clarify, read or go see the Laramie Project sometime. I played the bartendar in it freshman year of college

So brainbomb....because you played a role in a play that is based upon a real-life event that was HIGHLY publicized and politicized, you are therefore somehow an expert on the actual events that took place? lol Come one...get a fucking grip, moron. I like you, but that is just sheer shitbaggery stupidness.

Chances are it was at least in part a hate crime...but NON OF US WAS THERE.

Chances are, the media saw a gay kid killed and jumped to conclusions, and that became the overwhelming narrative, and all pther aspects of his life were ignored by all in favor of a juicy "gay kid killed" story....oh what fun!!

Just like.....truth: Black kid attack police and gets shot as cop defends himself turns into.....media narrative: Black kid brutally and without cause killed by hateful cops...let's sell bloody newspapers and burn down a city.



You are all assbags.

Your especially a douche brainbomb because you won't re-up in the game series.

But...all in all...I still love you. <wink>