The truth about Matthew Shepard

[Scott]

How things ought to be and how they are, are very different sometimes.

[sustento]

A policeman who won't charge a suspect for gay bashing isn't going to suddenly charge them because there's an extra law. If he ignores the first law why should he take notice of the second?

[ClutchClark]

Sigh.

There's a difference between simple equality and justice. Simple "equality" as you're using it isn't addressing the lack of privilege already inherent in oppressive frameworks.

Think about it this way, you start off, through no fault of your own with three donuts. Your next door neighbor starts of life with seven donuts. A person down the block started off life with twelve donuts. The typical person needs at least nine donuts just to have a chance at getting any other donuts, and all the social ability that comes with. Now, I come along and give you each three more donuts. That's "equal." You still only have six donuts. That guy down the block? He has FIFTEEN donuts. That's "equality" maybe, but it sure as hell isn't "justice."

I find your constant use of "sigh" to be quite arrogant, condescending and rude. Since you are so bored I will kindly step out of this thread. The topic was always close to my heart because I am from the West, had a grandson at UW at the time, and my stomach turned at the brutality of young Matthew's murder. For me, his sexual persuasion never entered into it. Still doesn't. Like most people in that region, I don't give two bits about a person's sexual persuasion. I don't think it makes you special.

Yawn all you like, I am oughta here.

[Caitrin]

Let's be clear on my use of "sigh." It is not a sign of boredom, nor is it equivalent to a yawn. It is, instead, a sign of frustrated resignation that I will spend my entire life explaining marginalised positions to those who are centered in society. So, I may sigh when a straight person doesn't get it. I may sigh when a man doesn't get it. I might sigh when a person of color struggles to explain to a white person, and that white person doesn't get it. And so on.

You seem put out because I've expressed justified frustration at needing to reiterate a point I already made earlier in the thread (and which Scott then reiterated again). Not to mention I've had to repeat it a great many times online/offline in my life.

I'm guessing, although correct me if I'm wrong, that while you are participating in the "Gay in Thailand" section of TV, you, yourself, are not queer? Not LGBT+ (QIA, etc?). If that is the case, then you're basically coming into a queer space and telling queer people that their lived experiences of their sexual orientation, which includes a heightened probability of harassment, violence, and murder, just isn't that important to considering just punishment for those who would commit violence against them. And that asking for such consideration is "special privilege" when we already lack a privilege--that of heterosexual privilege.

You can see how that might just possibly induce a bit of frustration, and a sigh certainly doesn't seem unwarranted to me.

If Matthew was murdered for being gay, that should have been taken into account. If it wasn't, it was a miscarriage of justice.

[sustento]

Dear Lord are we in a "queer space"? Let me guess - you're from the USA?

[robertthebruce]

Yes, she is grinding on me too, I just presumed English was not her first Lingo ????, hence the reason I just let it go....

[Caitrin]

Really, dudes? You're that upset that I gave a serious opinion on a serious issue? A gay person gave an opinion on a murder of a gay person and how murderers of gay people should be adjudicated?! Gasp.

I was born and raised in the USA, yes, but I have not lived there as an adult, and I don't consider myself an active or contributing member of American society, and soon, I won't even be an American legally.

And yes, English is my native language, the language of my parents, the language of my schooling.

[robertthebruce]

Really, dudes? You're that upset that I gave a serious opinion on a serious issue? A gay person gave an opinion on a murder of a gay person and how murderers of gay people should be adjudicated?! Gasp.

I was born and raised in the USA, yes, but I have not lived there as an adult, and I don't consider myself an active or contributing member of American society, and soon, I won't even be an American legally.

And yes, English is my native language, the language of my parents, the language of my schooling.

Calm down Luv ???? , , and soon not to be an American, don't fret, no doubt wherever you are you will latch on to that Country....

Have a nice day...

[ClutchClark]

Let's be clear on my use of "sigh." It is not a sign of boredom, nor is it equivalent to a yawn. It is, instead, a sign of frustrated resignation that I will spend my entire life explaining marginalised positions to those who are centered in society. So, I may sigh when a straight person doesn't get it. I may sigh when a man doesn't get it. I might sigh when a person of color struggles to explain to a white person, and that white person doesn't get it. And so on.

You seem put out because I've expressed justified frustration at needing to reiterate a point I already made earlier in the thread (and which Scott then reiterated again). Not to mention I've had to repeat it a great many times online/offline in my life.

I'm guessing, although correct me if I'm wrong, that while you are participating in the "Gay in Thailand" section of TV, you, yourself, are not queer? Not LGBT+ (QIA, etc?). If that is the case, then you're basically coming into a queer space and telling queer people that their lived experiences of their sexual orientation, which includes a heightened probability of harassment, violence, and murder, just isn't that important to considering just punishment for those who would commit violence against them. And that asking for such consideration is "special privilege" when we already lack a privilege--that of heterosexual privilege.

Caitrin, I don't frequent this forum and so I did not realize you were the official spokesperson.

I grew up thinking the word "queer" was considered degrading so I don't use the term out of respect.

What do you mean when you accuse me of being "centered in society"? Does that mean I am part of some majority? Do you realize you have just categorized and judged me based on my sexual identity. You have chosen not to see me as a fellow human being but rather to judge me by some biased metric of your own priority. I would call that rather "ironic" or possibly "hypocritical".

To all the members of this community forum, it is true that I am not LGBT. If that is a necessity of entry then I sincerely apologize. If any of you have read my above posts, I don't really think of people by their gender identity or sexual preference--its none of my business how someone chooses to live their life.

And all I ask from others is to allow me that same freedom.

[Jingthing]

Queer can be used as a slur which is traditional but it has taken on new positive meanings in recent decades. Anyone familiar with sexual minority issues would know that already (google is your friend).

This gay forum is open to all and posters here should not automatically be assumed to be sexual minorities.

This gay forum seems to attract a lot of American bashing, and that annoys me, as I am American, and this topic is about an American topic. But can't be helped I suppose. I think they're just jealous that they aren't a citizen of the most important country in the world ... ha ha ha.

About this "debate" having morphed into one about whether hate crime laws (which are about hate crimes against ANY group) are a good idea or not, I am definitely a supporter of hate crime laws but personally don't even find it interesting to argue against people who are against them. We're talking here about American laws in relation to the Shepard case ... what is said here about it just seems like mental masturbation.

I guess I do see the stream of "logic" here ... that the Shepard case which wasn't charged as a hate crime because that wasn't possible inspired some legislation to include anti-gay hate crimes and now there might be some doubt that the Shepard case really would have/should have been prosecutable as a hate crime calls into question the validity of anti-gay hate crime laws IN GENERAL ... but I'm not buying that.

IF the Shepard case had involved additional hate crime prosecution attempt, the hate crime aspect of it would have been before the court and would have been looked at in that way, and nobody knows whether it would have passed the test of that or not.

[ClutchClark]

Queer can be used as a slur which is traditional but it has taken on new positive meanings in recent decades. Anyone familiar with sexual minority issues would know that already (google is your friend).

This gay forum is open to all and posters here should not automatically be assumed to be sexual minorities.

This gay forum seems to attract a lot of American bashing, and that annoys me, as I am American, and this topic is about an American topic. But can't be helped I suppose. I think they're just jealous that they aren't a citizen of the most important country in the world ... ha ha ha.

About this "debate" having morphed into one about whether hate crime laws (which are about hate crimes against ANY group) are a good idea or not, I am definitely a supporter of hate crime laws but personally don't even find it interesting to argue against people who are against them. We're talking here about American laws in relation to the Shepard ... what is said here about it just seems like mental masturbation.

Jingthing, yes, I am familiar with google and I am familiar with the morphing of the term "queer". I am also familiar with the morphing of the "N" word to be acceptable now as well. That does not mean I choose to use either because I am of a generation that remembers those expressions causing pain to the people they were often directed at.

And, Jingthing, I would disagree with you that the term "queer" is now accepted by society. See how long that term can be bandied about in the workplace before the HR Dept and Legal Dept get involved.

The only point I had tried to make was that America suffered by the crime committed against Matthew Shepherd. One does not have to be LGBT to share in that grief any more than someone has to be from Casper, Wyoming.

From a purely legal, non-emotional perspective, this new rumor of a possible drug robbery has no more bearing on the findings of guilt or the sentencing of the two murderers than the introduction of Matthew's sexual identity did. The two killers were sentenced because of the brutality of the crime they committed against another human being.

The judicial system worked the way it was designed. It did not require hate-crime legislation enacted by another branch of gov't looking for votes in order for Justice to be served.

[Jingthing]

Like I said, I consider it a waste of time to argue HERE against what I consider the odious position of being against hate crime legislation. I accept many people do have that opinion and respect their right to their opinion.

Also, as I stated before, in my opinion a "debate" about the pros and cons of American hate crime legislation is OFF TOPIC for THIS thread.

In some ways I consider making this thread about how American hate crime legislation is wrong is kind of a thread hijack, and a specifically ANTI-GAY hijack as well, even if supported by gay people.

Really, it has been DONE TO DEATH in the real world anyway.

On the word QUEER I would agree you'd have to be careful about when to use it but I really don't think it's exactly equivalent to the N word.

Cheers!

[Jingthing]

Really, dudes? You're that upset that I gave a serious opinion on a serious issue? A gay person gave an opinion on a murder of a gay person and how murderers of gay people should be adjudicated?! Gasp.

I was born and raised in the USA, yes, but I have not lived there as an adult, and I don't consider myself an active or contributing member of American society, and soon, I won't even be an American legally.

And yes, English is my native language, the language of my parents, the language of my schooling.

Hi there!

I have noticed you are actively posting on the gay forum!

Welcome!

New blood is always badly needed here, especially from the QUEER community!

After all, this forum is indeed the place for discussion about sexual minority issues.

Imagine if the women's forum was all dudes!

[Scott]

Continued inflammatory statements about people's nationality will earn suspension.

People have the right to express their opinion. You are free to disagree.

Keep it civil or suspensions will be given.

[Caitrin]

Perhaps this is a generational divide. When I was a kid, yes, queer was a slur. But by the time I got to university, it has been an acceptable label. Language changes, and I don't think queer, which is used even academically "queer space, queer theory, queer readings" is at all the same as the n-word.

I didn't bring up hate crimes legislation. I simply defended it. If the thread was hi-jacked, I didn't do that hi-jacking.

And I agree, frankly, the American bashing is pretty out of line--as is trying to pigeon hole all of my lived experiences into one nationality. Especially a nationality belonging to a nation where I have never lived in as a functioning adult member of society. Sure, I have cultural aspects of an American, but I've also only ever had a career, paid bills, had my own apartment, etc, etc, in Japan, and when I visit friends and family in the USA, I'm usually struck by how strange it is and how much I feel like an outsider. I am not monocultural, and I never will be. My experiences as a functioning member of Japanese society will always color my view of the world, just as my childhood as an American will. To weight one more than the other is... well.. just wrong.

[Scott]

Thanks for that informative post and for sharing.