The Laramie Project Analysis
Rights are indefinitely something that people are born with, not something you earn. In The Laramie Project, by Moisés Kaufman and the members of the Tectonic Theater Project, Matthew Shepard, a homosexual college student was at a bar drinking and keeping to himself, when two other men Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson who were drunk approached the bar. They both made plans between each other to pretend to be gay and take Matthew Shepard somewhere and teach him a lesson; they attacked him, left him tied to a fence all bloodied .The author of The Laramie Project wanted this story to reach everywhere, and touch people’s hearts, so that they can see that no one should be treated differently because of how one chooses to express their person.
…show more content…
The very first group that was made was called, The Society for Human Right in Chicago. This was the country's earliest known gay rights movement organization. In The American Gay Rights Movement: A Timeline, there were good things achievements that transpired, but if you think about it, they were still against homosexuality. “ Illinois becomes the first state in the U.S to decriminalize homosexual acts between consenting adults in private”(1969). It seems like they are allowing it to happen, but in private. It’s basically discrimination, because if a heterosexual couple kisses in public it’s okay but if a homosexual couple kisses in public it’s a crime. I don’t agree with this law because every person should be allowed to kiss in public but keep sexual acts in private, they should be allowed to be themselves, but people will be people. It seems like everyone is afraid of what’s different, so much so that they will criminalize it and make people have to struggle for their inalienable …show more content…
This means that they are biased as well. When Matthew Shepard had been killed and after the public was told that he was homosexual. Some of his friends and townspeople wanted to hold a vigil for him. Religious leaders of the community were invited to attend. Only one Religious leader Father Roger Schmit was the only one attended the vigil, he tried to get the other religious leaders involved, but they said no, that they would rather wait and see what happens. In the text it says, “ I was really jolted, because you know, when we did the vigil-- we wanted to get other ministers involved and we called some of them, and they were not gonna get involved. It was like ‘ We are gonna stand back and wait’....that angered me immensely. We are suppose to stand out as leaders”(25). This means that, some Religious leaders aren’t fit to lead the regular people, specifically these ministers who appear to be homophobic. If you’re a leader you have to try to take your feelings out of the equation and actually lead, not take sides or even be biased. Specially if you’re a man of god, you should be treating people like what they are and that is human beings. It’s understood that what a Religious leader says or does in front of his followers is taken into heavy account, people actually believe that what they are being taught is how things should be. Some religious leaders believe that a family
The very first group that was made was called, The Society for Human Right in Chicago. This was the country's earliest known gay rights movement organization. In The American Gay Rights Movement: A Timeline, there were good things achievements that transpired, but if you think about it, they were still against homosexuality. “ Illinois becomes the first state in the U.S to decriminalize homosexual acts between consenting adults in private”(1969). It seems like they are allowing it to happen, but in private. It’s basically discrimination, because if a heterosexual couple kisses in public it’s okay but if a homosexual couple kisses in public it’s a crime. I don’t agree with this law because every person should be allowed to kiss in public but keep sexual acts in private, they should be allowed to be themselves, but people will be people. It seems like everyone is afraid of what’s different, so much so that they will criminalize it and make people have to struggle for their inalienable …show more content…
This means that they are biased as well. When Matthew Shepard had been killed and after the public was told that he was homosexual. Some of his friends and townspeople wanted to hold a vigil for him. Religious leaders of the community were invited to attend. Only one Religious leader Father Roger Schmit was the only one attended the vigil, he tried to get the other religious leaders involved, but they said no, that they would rather wait and see what happens. In the text it says, “ I was really jolted, because you know, when we did the vigil-- we wanted to get other ministers involved and we called some of them, and they were not gonna get involved. It was like ‘ We are gonna stand back and wait’....that angered me immensely. We are suppose to stand out as leaders”(25). This means that, some Religious leaders aren’t fit to lead the regular people, specifically these ministers who appear to be homophobic. If you’re a leader you have to try to take your feelings out of the equation and actually lead, not take sides or even be biased. Specially if you’re a man of god, you should be treating people like what they are and that is human beings. It’s understood that what a Religious leader says or does in front of his followers is taken into heavy account, people actually believe that what they are being taught is how things should be. Some religious leaders believe that a family