Should Harvey Milk Have Been A Registered Sex-Offender?

Jack Mckinley was a minor when the affairs started.

Listen to you defending:

I didn't use the words "cast away". Here's a profile of the 16 year old's mental state known to Harvey Milk:

Here's the penal code that applies [since you appear incapable of remembering it while we are discussing pertinent facts]:

Do I have to quote the CA penal code that states it's illegal to sodomize a person also under the age of 18? Do you have short-term memory problems?

Yes, the minor did eventually reach the age of 18 and even beyond. Just like the other children abducted or molested sexually while still minors. Are you trying to say that once they reach 18 the crimes against them no longer are crimes?

The more you defend Harvey Milk, the deeper you sink in the quicksand of "why are gays defending a predator of sex crimes against minors"? But being firmly lodged in what apparently seems to be an alternate universe where crimes aren't crimes and "anything goes" sexually, even if child victims are involved, you are having difficulty seeing your arguments and defensiveness through the eyes of non-gays trying to make up their minds if this cultural supplanting of mainstream values is a good thing or not.

I suggest getting a friend to play devil's advocate for your defending Milk before you actually come on here and post your thoughts about the matter.

 

Meanwhile, you'd ask us to forget that Milk wasn't prosecuted or convicted for what you assert was illegal behavior.

All you've got is a hypothetical argument that you use as a tool to demonize gay people. It won't stop us from pointing out that reality, nor your misuse of terms.

On the contrary, my aim here isn't to defend Milk. It's to point out where your arguments are not founded on reality, are misleading, or outright falsehoods.

Wow, you packed a whole lot of crap into that rhetorical interrogative.

1) If you want to be taken seriously, then you can't avoid people's reasonable expectation that you'll apply terms according to their accepted meaning. When you don't, you can expect to have such bad behavior pointed out, and when you persist in repeating it over and over again despite being shown your error, you can expect to be labeled as a troll whose sole purpose is to spout propaganda - not as someone interested in an intelligent debate of the issues. Meaning matters - a great deal.

2) Re: "clear and discernable sex crimes" asks us to posit as true that we can discern Milk's behavior to be a sex crime. It may look criminal, but without prosecution leading to a conviction, we can't definitively say that it was. Your aim is to put Milk on trial, with you acting alone as his judge and jury. I see no reason to grant you that power.

3) Re: "vulnerable child", you're making a lot of assumptions about the exact circumstances of that relationship. Assumptions which wouldn't necessarily fly in a court of law without more support from real evidence. Real, as opposed to what an author wrote about from their perspective, or which you made up in your head.

4) Re: "gay hero". Nowhere have I said Milk was my "gay hero", and in fact I've stated very clearly quite the opposite. So that counts as you making (*)(*)(*)(*) up, and nothing more.

"Young" is not exact enough to provide us with evidence the Milk was a pedophile. It is a relative term, not an objective one, and can refer to adults as well. So you're claim that I cherry-picked here is specious.

A "crime" not proved to be such through prosecution and conviction. A "crime" only through your characterization of it as such.

A crime that would need to be proved in a court of law - not the court of YOUR opinion.

Still not proved with sufficient supporting evidence. You've got nothing but repetition. Case in point:

Shilts bold assertion. He's dead so we can't question him about the evidence for his claims. How convenient for you.

Not shown to be a pedophile, and not my hero. Get a new argument. This one is beyond stale.

 

Now you're going even more extreme and alleging abduction. Without any evidence. Unbelievable in several senses of the word.

 

Here's the really stupid part of this whole debate: I'm more than happy to say that I think some of Milk's actions in his personal life were despicable, and that some might even have been prosecutable. And it doesn't matter how many times I or anyone else says that - Silhouette will persist with baiting us by mischaracterizing Milk as a pedophile and calling him our "gay hero".

The opposition's deafness is astounding.

 

Ironically, he could say the exact same thing in response to you.... both of you are just repeating the same facts over and over, don't act like the innocent one

 

And right back at ya.....

 

Here's you using the words "cast away":

You use colorful language and implant motivations that can't actually be seen from the documents you quote to try and paint a picture that's worse than what it was. I'll be clear that this is not because I want to defend having sex with 16 year olds, but you should be fair in the assessment at least.

I remember the code just fine. Strictly speaking, you have submitted no evidence that the two had sex WHILE jack was intoxicated. You haven't even submitted evidence that they had sex at all. We know he was an addict, but that's not the same as saying he was intoxicated during sex.

In addition, what you appear incapable of remembering is that prosecutors have the right to use their own discretion when deciding if a case should be prosecuted or not. If they do not consider a case to violate the PURPOSE of the law, then they do not have to prosecute.

You do understand the difference between the "letter of the law" and "the spirit of the law", correct?

Just as an example, let's say you have two people... husband and wife. They like to get trashed.... alcohol, weed, meth, what have you. They are hard-core drug users. They have sex sometimes when they're sober, sometimes when they're not. Neither party feels violated after they get off their high, it's just something they do.... over and over and over again. Technically they can't give legal consent while intoxicated, but I believe most would agree that consent is implied in a long term relationship like this, especially when there's no question from either party after-the-fact.

And them compare that to the scenario where some guy slips some roofies in a drink of a strange girl at a party and rapes her. Or some guy finds a girl he doesn't know at a party, completely and utterly trashed in her own right and takes advantage of her.

Do you see the difference in the two scenarios? Sometimes enforcing the letter of the law is inappropriate and shifts focus away from the purpose/spirit of the law. The decision on how to enforce the purpose is at the discretion of prosecutors.

There's two ways to look at that question.

One is from a moral point of view: The question about all of this is if Jack could give consent. It's debatable if a 16 year old is capable. But it's not debatable if an 18 year old can (while not intoxicated at least). Given that Jack continued to consent into 18 and beyond, and never brought charges against anything done previously, it can be inferred that his age had no impact on the matter. So while Harvey may still be technically guilty of having sex with someone without legal consent, consent was verified, after-the-fact.

But we're not concerned about morals here, are we - we just want to nail him to the wall for violating the letter of the law.

To which I would say, no, Jack turning 18 doesn't directly eliminate the crime, but a 3 year statute of limitations does. 3 years later, and after turning 18, still Jack did not consider himself to have been taken advantage of - their relationship was never described, before or after, as being non-consensual in fact, technicalities not withstanding.

And don't forget, the state legislature of California as well. Not just gays.

The issue is not that I'm just defending Harvey.... it's that I'm not taking a hard-lined, black-and-white stance in the matter. The application of the law and moral judgments involved are not that black-and-white. I can disapprove of harvey being in a relationship, without also saying he should have been prosecuted. And indeed, I disapprove of harvey being in a relationship with a 16 year old, morally speaking.

But the question is if he should have been prosecuted as a sex offender. That's a difficult question to answer without a much greater understanding of Jack and his ability to consent, so I'll take the same side that the New York and California prosecutors took, as with the state legislature of California in 2008 and 2009.

Perhaps you should consider why state prosecutors in california and new york did not consider it an issue that needed legal action, and the opinion of the california state legislature that voted, twice, to memorialize the accused sex offender. I'm not exactly in an outlandish position.

 

Agreed. As has been said before, the OP presents a perfectly acceptable question, which we could all be more than happy to speculate on. Under normal circumstances, a perfectly acceptable question.

Of course, we all know the question is not just designed for an interesting discussion - it's designed to put gays in a corner and try to label them as supporting child molestation.

The OP presents a modest amount of information from biographies that would be more than enough to speculate on, but certainly not enough to prosecute on. But the OP thinks it's a solid case, and if you even DARE defend or play devils advocate, you're accused of defending child molestation. Things are just not that black and white in a question about morality and legality.

And what's truly funny about this whole scenario is the OP is trying to use this as proof that gays are advocating for child molestation, while conveniently ignoring that the decision to make Harvey Milk Day was not a decision by gay organizations.... it was a decision made, twice, by the California State Legislature. So unless we want to accuse the legislature and anyone who agrees with them of ALSO supporting child molestation, the whole argument is bunk.

 

Pretty much right on.

I have never defended Harvey Milk.

I object to the deceit practiced in presenting that claim that he committed a crime is proven.

That- and I object to the attempt to associate homosexuality with pedophilia, which is what the OP real objective is.

 

If Harvey Milk had carried a gun he probably wouldn't be dead today.

 

Disappointed that people are not replying to the topic I created on Law & Justice Titled By Silhouette & SFJeff's request-ideology of 'gay bashings.' But the fact to repeat is that Harvey Bernard Milk was a homosexual statutory rapist who harmed a 16 year old boy. The posters who dispute this IMO don't seriously believe what they're saying. As to associating homosexuality with pedophilia, it's a fact that if a boy is repeatedly homosexually raped, then the likelihood is more that he'll do gay activities in adulthood because homosexual rape can mess up mind & cause some people to act in ways they normally wouldn't. To say otherwise is rubbish. It's possible that Harvey Milk's victim took part in gay activities in adulthood because of the homosexual statutory rape he suffered. Finally to repeat, Harvey Bernard Milk also had sex in public parks so he was a homo statutory rapist & did public indecency. To argue otherwise is rubbish.

 

He wasn't prosecuted or convicted, so the point is moot. But instead of a reasonable debate surrounding the alleged facts, Silhouette used it as anti-gay propaganda.

It's my opinion that you aren't a mind reader, and therefore not in a position to say what posters here do or do not believe beyond what they've stated.

He might be more likely to commit homosexual acts, but 'gay' and 'homosexual' aren't necessarily synonymous in that situation. Gay is more related to identity, where homosexual is a broader adjective that can describe things that may or may not be related to being gay.

To say otherwise is to engage in debate of the issue, and the purpose for the forum's existence.

Possible, but not proved.

 

That depends on what you define as homosexual. My definition of homosexual is knowingly & voluntarily taking part in homo/lesbian activities & sexual orientation is to me a moot point. Homo/lesbian activities are useless just as drug use is useless & it's best for gays/lesbians to be celibate even if orientation does not change. Homosexual/lesbian activities must be viewed the same way as drug junkyism is. Sex change mutilations are worse & must be abolished. This topic has repeated but it's a fact no matter what Harvey Milk apologists say that Harvey Bernard Milk was a homosexual statutory rapist who did it with 16 year old boy & Harvey Bernard Milk committed public indecency by having sex in parks. People like Elton John can make excuses for him, but he was a bad person.

 

No, it depends on properly understanding the meaning of the word. Nothing more, nothing less.

Stop right there. You don't get to just make up definitions and then demand that we accept them as valid.

And we should care why you consider it a moot point why, exactly?

That's a matter of opinion. A rather bigoted one, at that.

Best for whom? Why is it "best"?

Why must they? Because you say so? Who are you that anyone should care about your opinion on this?

More unfounded opinion.

You're welcome to your opinion, and that's all any of this is. I see no reason that we should care that you have an opinion about Harvey Milk, much less the content thereof.

 

A) I replied once to your topic.

B) The fact is that your fact is merely speculation- the OP has not provided one piece of evidence that Milk ever had sex with a 16 year old boy. To claim that it is a fact that he did shows either a desire to deceive or a lack of comprehension of what a fact is.

And frankly, that kind of comment is why I stop engaging with you in the other thread.

 

She reminds me a bit of a five-year-old: when someone says something she doesn't want to hear, she covers her ears and hollers "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!"

 

No offense intended Snow, but your style is too undisciplined and rambling for me to participate in. Part of what the disciplined faction of the media advocacy groups who have posters on the net promoting the gay subculture do is use diversions to "extinguish" weighty topics like the Harvey Milk catch-22 [see below]. If you're rambling and all over the place, they will jump for joy. Look at Perriquines response to you for an example of that. Allowing ten different topics onto the same thread [the cause of gay sex, whether or not they should practice it, odd spins on what they should do to curb it..etc.etc.etc.] and trying to give each one of them weight, dilutes all of them. So I'll be avoiding that.

Meanwhile..something you said does relate soley to this topic.

Agreed. This thread is more about the reactions of the gay crowd in defending Harvey Milk's blatant sex-crimes against a vulnerable 16-year old drug addict than it is about anything else. Except that unfortunately, I think that the posters here defending the man's actions actually do take themselves seriously...and that alone is a topic for a whole other thread.

For those keeping track, the gay advocates are at once having a fit about being associated with pedophilia and other sex crimes involving minors and at the same precise moment flying in defense of a known sex-criminal against vulnerable minors. And also holding him out as their "quintessential ambassador". What is that saying?

I know in the back and forth and all the distractions here it's easy to forget this one simple principle. But there it is. Digest it... My hunch is that some people have already and hence the poll results..

 

I hope you're not offended Snow. And don't lose any sleep over getting booted from Hannity's forum. Like I said, Hannity is a jackass..

 

Defending sex crimes and calling you out on your own opinions and believes that you put forward as fact are two different things.

Let me put it to you this way.... it's like you telling us that Hitler committed Genocide against Native Americans, and us calling you out and saying "no hitler didn't, he committed genocide against the jews". You then call us out and say we're defending hitler, and thus defending genocide.

No, no we're not. We're just telling you to stop misrepresenting the facts. I don't think anyone here in this thread approves of Harvey's relationship with Jack. Us calling you out on your continued baiting by calling him a pedophile (among other exaggerations) does not mean we approve of Harvey's behavior. It just means we're telling you to call and apple and apple and to stop embellishing the story.

"Quintessential ambassador"? lol... there's another example of that embellishment I'm talking about. Here let me edit it for you

What's that saying? That he's recognized by the vast majority of main-stream elected officials in the state legislature, and gay groups for his contributions as a leader in promoting civil rights, nothing more, nothing less. Your embellishments are of your own creation. I hardly even knew who the guy was, and frankly I still don't. Kinda ridiculous to claim we're all rallying to the defense of our "gay hero". It's more likely we're rallying against you.

 

Oh, that makes a world of difference. Holding out a pedophile as a "Prominent Figure in the Gay Civil Rights Movement" is in no way damaging to the gay civil rights movement wanting to be seen as distanced from child sex criminals..

...lol..

 

From post #269 last page, SFJeff

You're once again trying to say that one type of sex crime against children is "more legitmate" than others. Your analogy is incorrect. Hitler never persecuted Native Americans. Harvey Milk did take sexual advantage of a mentally ill, drug addicted minor in violation of state laws. That actually happened. It's been documented. Hitler attacking Native Americans was in no way documented. There is a book out by a close friend of Harvey Milks, another gay man named Randy Shilts that documents in great and fine detail Milk's sex crimes against Jack McKinley.

Your beef is with Randy Shilts, who unfortunately died of AIDS after unsuccessfully trying to get gay bath houses shut down because of their being a major vector in the spread of the deadly HIV virus. He is the one who "embellished the story". But since he was known for his brutal accuracy in journalism, even when it got him spat on by gays for his wanting bathhouses closed...who lined up and called him a "traitor to his kind", I tend to believe that he told the truth about his friend Harvey Milk. He told the raw, unembellished story of the child-sex criminal who everyone forgave because he also was simultaneously the neo-leader of the "gay civil rights movement".

I'm trying to think how far Dr. Martin Luther King Junior would've gotten in fame if at the same time he marched for civil rights, he was sodomizing drug addicted 16 year olds. My guess is blacks as well as whites may have shunned him a bit more. Pretty sure he wouldn't have a holiday dedicated to him.

But that's just my educated guess. I could be wrong of course. Particularly if King lived in California in that unlikely scenario..

Finally, you use the word "we" and its derivatives quite liberally in your last post. And another cat crawls out of the bag. You have just confirmed my hunch that there are a group of you, organized of the same mind [how else could you speak so specifically for "all of you"?] out on the internet pushing an agenda on behalf of gays wanting....hmmm...dare I say their "cultural influence to expand"?

 

Silly...are you on hallucinogenic drugs?

 

I'm wondering if SFJeff has a reply for who "we" is?

 

Probably the people posting HERE (I do count myself in that group) that are sick and tired of your incessant trolling, your half-truths, your outright LIES, and your spamming.

 

Too bad for your case that Milk was in NO way a "pedophile".

FAIL.