Should Harvey Milk Have Been A Registered Sex-Offender?

Nope, not really. For one, he wasn't a pedophile as about 99.99999999999999% of the world defines the word. For two, it was a decision made by the state legilatur of california. Your beef is with them.

By the way, it was me who used the world "We" in post 269, not SFJeff. So this post of yours was directed to me:

Guilty as charged, what can I say. If the world has a professional at reading into things, it's you. I thought I could hide it, but you blew the cover wide off me. I'm actually part of a secret organization of homosexuals, called PEDO (People Eager to Defile Offspring). We've infiltrated your schools, your local and state legislature, your Malls and Fashion Boutiques, and soon even your churches and their false gods will fall to our might. We won't rest until we've enslaved all heterosexuals into breeding machines so that we can recruit their children. "PRAISE BE TO YOU MY LORD AND SAVIOR, HARVEY MILK, AND MAY YOU REST IN HEAVEN WITH YOUR 71 VIRGIN BOYS". This is our mantra, learn it well.

It's a conspiracy I tell you.

What a freaking joke.

 

DING DING DING DING DING!!!! We have a winner! I'm sorry for anyone that did not want to be considered part of that "we", but I was indeed referring to the fair number of people on this thread that have pointed out the various embellishments and half-truths put forward as facts. Well, them and my secret organization of homosexuals that scour the internet forums to promote the cause of pedophilia. Since that's such an effective way to get things done.

 

So what would you call sodomizing a drug-addicted, mentally-ill 16 year old in a state where the age of consent is 18? OK, we'll argue semantics if that's what you like. what would you call that? "Leadership material"?

Tell me, what is the name for that and why would you choose such a person to head up your "civil rights" movement? Like I said, if Dr. MLK Jr. had been sodomizing 16 year old drug addicted, mentally-ill teen boys, openly and unapologetically, I'm pretty sure his name would only be on a prison roll sheet somewhere and not on a holiday in January..

 

Typical heterosexual behavior.

 

An alleged crime, which cannot be prosecuted because the alleged perpetrator is dead.

What would you call someone who "owned" slaves? The "Father of our Country"? Obviously Milk is not on a par with Washington, but the point remains that political leaders are imperfect and many have personal lives that make them less than admirable people. It doesn't, however, make them any less leaders. It doesn't make their political legacy any less important. It doesn't mean we shouldn't teach on the facts relevant to their place in history.

Um, we didn't take a vote or elect him to be our leader. No one consulted me about whether or not I thought he should have a place of prominence in our movement.

MLK Jr. was no saint, either. Leading a morally pure life is not a prerequisite to being a leader or making a difference.

It's easy to speculate about "might have beens", but they don't mean (*)(*)(*)(*). Reality is what matters. I suggest you learn to deal with it.

 

Actually it's anything but. I'm trying to think of a civil rights movement who picked a person to head up their gig who openly admitted to those crimes?

Keywords: openly admitted to. Known. Written about by an accredited journalist/friend of the perpetrator, also a gay man himself.


To pick THAT PERPETRATOR as someone to head up a sexual movement praying for "racial equality" is more than significant. It is telling. If you're in the gay movement, how do you distance yourself from the associations often made between especially gay men and sex crimes against children/minors? Pick a child-sex criminal, naturally!

Not. What the hell is going on with you people? It really does make one think if your forcible removal [might makes right] from the DSM was not such a hot idea.. If you cannot even make the connection between those simple concepts there clearly is a mental disconnect. A significant one. And judging by the hystrionics here in the blind-defensiveness of the indefensible, all the manuevering and machinations/accusations to "make the subject go away!", it's looking pretty obvious...what's really going on.

The correct stance for anyone promoting gay "civil rights" would be to say , "yep, we made a mistake. We need to withdraw Harvey Milk as our ambassador/leader."

But instead gays stubbornly insist his sex crimes against the minor boy were 'forgivable' 'not that serious' 'part of his sexuality' [nevermind minors' rights to protection]...

Odd..

 

Please elaborate Perriquine. Was MLK Jr. sodomizing drug-addicted, mentally-ill underaged teen boys? Just curious.

 

Exactly. We aren't organized, but where we can claim to speak with one mind is on the matter of being "sick and tired of [Silhouette's] incessant trolling", peddling "half-truths", "outright LIES", and spamming propaganda in an effort to demonize gay people.

Oh, and the bit about our "secret organization" scouring "internet forums to promote the cause of pedophilia" = sarcasm, just in case anyone isn't clear.

No one posting here has discussed strategy with me. Whether or not others have with each other I can't say, but I doubt it. Several people agreeing with each other in an online forum that Silhouette's postings are anti-gay, propaganda-filled spam, full of half-truths, willful distortions and outright lies, does not a conspiracy make. The plain fact is that Silhouette's actions portray someone very disreputable. People reacting to that in agreement isn't very surprising.

 

I said he wasn't a saint. This kind of BS question is exactly why I find your posts so annoying. If you want to know the truth about MLK Jr., do the research yourself. I'm seriously not going to get drawn into an off-topic discussion about the details with you.

 

Discussing civil rights leaders and their clandestine [or quite open in H. Milk's case] lifestyles is PRECISELY what this thread is about. You brought up that MLK Jr. was less than saintly. So I asked and am asking now for you to elaborate. Was he, like Harvey Milk, openly sodomizing drug-addicted, mentally ill, underaged teen boys? It's very simple: "yes" or "no". And if "no" then what do you accuse MLK Jr. of being less than saintly about but still able to lead the black movement?

Be careful though. Your analogy has to be approximate. For instance, since the gay "civil rights" movement is about mainstreaming sexual behaviors, a man guilty of [openly admitting to] criminal sexual behaviors against minors &/or the mentally ill would not be the right one to pick to be the movement's leader.

Likewise, if MLK Jr. used to tar and feather black political rivals, he might not be the best pick to head up the black civil rights movement. Through all this I get the eerie and unsettling feeling that gays expect people not to get upset at mentally-ill minors being used as sex objects by adults. I get the eerie feeling that minor children do not "exist" as legitmate beings worthy of their own civil rights as to the very base one of all: rights to protection under the law.

Yes...I get this eeire feeling that this is the case: "minors" aren't to be considered in this discussion. Like they are not real people?

 

Right, because individual posters on an Internet forum have that kind of power.

Get it through your head already: We (the people posting here) didn't pick Milk for anything. We (the people posting here) weren't consulted. We (the people posting here) have already given you our honest opinions about Milk's personal life and alleged crimes.

But you want something more - the impossible. For the less-than-a-handful of posters here to somehow reverse history, so that Harvey Milk would never have attained the position of political power that he did, such that those actions would never become something relevant to California's history. You expect us (the people posting here) to persuade the California legislature to reverse course. (They're not going to listen to me, since I'm in Michigan). You want us (the people posting here) to persuade groups advocating on behalf of gay people to demand that he be withdrawn. I can tell you without doubt they wouldn't listen to me, even if I were inclined to agree with the ridiculous idea of removing Milk from history - which I don't. His contributions are what they are, regardless of his effed up personal life.

Alleged crimes. Milk was not prosecuted nor convicted. You don't get to assign yourself as judge and jury to put a dead man on trial to pronounce sentence upon him.

Regardless, Milk's crimes weren't perpetrated against me, so I have nothing to forgive on that score. Whether or not they were "serious" (or even criminal at all) hasn't been proved where it matters - in a court of law. As for 'part of his sexuality', who said that? Quote the full context for us. No more of this smoke and mirrors where you fake-quote a whole lot of nobody, trying to stick words in our mouths.

 

What part of 'no' didn't you understand? I'm not going to elaborate. No means no.

Edit: And of course you're seizing on this to ignore the real point, which I'd like you to address:

Leading a morally pure life is not a prerequisite to being a leader or making a difference.

We can replace MLK Jr. with any other person relevant to history whose life wasn't saintly. Will I have to expound on all of them too?

Not going to happen.

What exactly would be the point of people wasting their energy on getting upset about something that allegedly happened 30+ years ago, between people who are long since dead? What do you think it will accomplish?

Here you betray what you're really up to though - trying to play off people's emotions. Certainly we can agree that IF Milk was actually molesting a minor, incapable of giving consent by reason of age, mental illness and/or addiction, that would be wrong. You want us to agree with you that he was a criminal, and I'm not going to do that, since I rely on the proved facts. Randy Shilts writing a book doesn't constitute sufficient proof. Had Milk been prosecuted and convicted of this alleged crime, and were I satisfied that he received a fair trial leading up to that conviction, I would have no problem with characterizing him as a criminal. But he wasn't, and so I'm not going to make that leap with you.

Certainly it's heartbreaking that such a thing would happen - IF it happened the way you would like everyone here to believe. But we've examined your "evidence", and found it lacking in substance. Repeating the bald assertion with nothing more than Shilts writing to back it up, when he's conveniently dead and not available to corroborate your claim, isn't enough.

Asinine. Of course they're real people, worthy of protection. You aren't trying to protect them though - you're trying to use them as a tool in your anti-gay propaganda. They don't need "protection" from the relevant facts concerning Harvey Milk as a political figure. Irrelevant facts about his personal life are just that - irrelevant. You aren't going to make them relevant by spouting your propaganda.

 

Harvey Bernard Milk's apologists rehash the same trash. It's good to be bigoted against gay/lesbian activities just as it's good to be bigoted against drug use. Gay/lesbian activities though legal in the U.S. between consenting adults is an anti-social activity. But to repeat, Harvey Bernard Milk was a homosexual statutory rapist & did public indecency in parks. Gay/lesbian activisits should say that they don't care if Harvey Milk committed homosexual statutory rape on a 16 year old boy & say they support him though he did this-@least then it's honest. Silhouette, you've proved your case about Harvey Bernard Milk being a homosexual statutory rapist & it's possible to repeat that his victim took part in gay activities in adulthood because of homosexual statutory rape messing up his mind. This topic has repeated & will say the same rubbish. Finally Silhouette, it's OK if you did not reply to the post I created but that topic too would become repeat as this 1 has.

 

Considering you were quoting someone else, but using my name....

No- I don't know who the poster was referring to.

I suspect that he was referring to the vast number of people who prefer the truth over lies but I am only speculating.

So a couple of things
a) I suspect it is against forum rules to misquote someone- but not a big deal to me- I think that was an honest mistake on your part.

b) What I object to- and this part I have been very clear on- are two things:
1) You still keep claiming that you know that Milk sodomized a 16 year old- and keep claiming that Shilts says so- but as your own quotes show- Shilts never said this- and you are just making this up. If you just said that you believe based upon what Shilts said that Milk had sodomized McKinley I probably wouldn't care as much- but your twisting the truth offends me.
2) The other part is that this whole thread is just another attempt by you to associate homosexuality with pedophilia. I object because no matter how much you try to twist things around, the large majority of all pedophilia victims are girls assaulted by men. And you have never once indicated any concern for the victims.

This is your own very personal jihad against homosexuals.

 

Snow- I don't like responding to your quotes because you refuse to use paragraphs and the use of this odd color just makes your posts harder to read- so i am going to just make a short point.

Well at least you are honest that you are bigoted towards homosexual 'activities' but I suspect that you don't know what the word means.

I seriously don't know how 'homosexual' activities are any more anti-social than 'hetero-sexual activities, but I will point out one more time- there is no actual evidence that Harvey Milk was a statutory rapist.

And I have no idea what you are talking about with the toilet.

 

But Silhouette can't have that discussion.

That would be worthy of a discussion, but the blanket claim that we all must accept the OP's claim that he was in fact a homosexual rapist, or else we are Milk sympathizers is not a real discussion.

 

One might argue that if one wishes to "not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.", a plagiarist might not be the best leader to put forward, and certainly not something we'd really want to put forward in a school.

One might not consider it appropriate to have a national holiday in honor of someone's exploration and discovery of the new world when Christopher Columbus was known to be committing genocide in the process.

One find it ironic that we honor Abraham Lincoln as a protector of our country and liberator of african americans, when at the same time he blatantly ignored one of our most fundamental rights - the right to habeas corpus. Even in the face of the supreme court telling him otherwise, and the lack of a constitutional power to do so.

While he's not remembered in a national holiday, one might find it interesting to know some of Walt Disney's early cartoons had sections seen as racist. He is known to have said some questionable things about jews and other minorities.

And I'm sure there's plenty of other questionable actions done by various people the memorialized and honored. You can't demand, by your own opinion, that "the appropriate thing for gays to do is denounce Harvey Milk Day". For one, it's not your place, my place, or the place of anyone on this forum alone to decide the requirements for being being memorialized, and it's presumptuous to think anyone that disagrees with you on this matter must be supporting child molestation. For two, you're talking about the wrong crowed. Your beef is with the State Legislature of California. They're the ones who voted for the holiday.... twice, with an overwhelming majority. It was signed into law in 2009 by the governor and still stands.

 

I was here first, get a new name

 

You haven't actually been following the thread, have you. (That's not a question.)

 

Exactly. Anyone else ready to bail on this dead-horse-beaten-into-subatomic-pieces thread?

 

After consulting with my brethren of the holy order of PEDO, we have written the question and burned it upon the ashes of 2 sacrificed earthworms, a dildo and a picture of Elvis Presley. We were left with the image of a bright silhouette as commonly seen in photography, fading into an empty, black hole in the center. Such is the depth of this thread, where what appears bright on the outside is quickly shown to be empty and devoid of meaning, rife with hidden agenda and a failure to produce evidence for such.

We have unanimously agreed that we are right, OP is wrong, and in the honor of the spirit of the OP, we will our ears, affirm ourselves correct and unchallengable, condem any who oppose, regardless of cause and kindly step out.

 

We can agree on it. A book was written about it by an accredited journalist and friend of Harvey Milk. It's been DOCUMENTED. And this document can be accessed in public libraries by the very children in CA schools who are being taught to see Harvey Milk as "the quintessential gay hero". What is that going to say to other minors reading that book? It's going to say, "it's OK for adults to have anal sex with you if you are on drugs and mentally instable." How is a child's mind going to bridge the gap between their protection via the penal codes and the reality of what adults support? How is that child going to sort out what sexual decisions will be best for him and which won't? How will this child see the mass approval of minors being taken advanted of sexually as "heroic"?

This isn't a discussion about the impact to adults of Harvey Milk being their gay hero as it is to children seeing Harvey Milk and his documented sexual contact with minors and its impact on how minors view their sexual selves.

The message is loud and clear: "you are for the use of adults". Laws regarding this are to be ignored.

Now, keep all that in mind while you digest the following:

 

As to JeffLV 1/2 truth on Christopher Columbus, during Columbus's time, slavery was accepted worldwide & as to the American Indians, if JeffLV is implying the American Indians were Noble Savages, that's wrong. Both the Tainos & Canibs, along with other Amerindians practiced slavery, wars, some practiced human cannibalism, etc. The Spaniards treated the American Indians better to @ worst no differently than the way American Indians treated eachother. I do not believe the statistic that millions of Amerindians were killed by diseases-that # is too high. But American Indians have more chances today because they lost the wars. BTW, I am not White but what happened to the Amerindians in the end is the lesser of 2 bads. American Indians have cars, computers, chances to become engineers, lawyers, etc. because they got something better from losing.

With slavery, while slavery of Blacks was bad, African Americans of slave descent have more chances to succeed than their cousins in Africa who did not come to the U.S.. If a Black person is poor in the U.S., he or she usu. has a car & if they have the talent, they can become an engineer, lawyer or if they're gifted @ sports, a boxer, basketball player, football player, MMA, while if you're living in poverty in an African nation but you have the talent to become an engineer, the odds are greatly against you. But with Christopher Columbus, the Catholic Church Catholics such as the late Warren H. Carroll, etc. admit Columbus had slaves & they don't defend everything that Columbus did such as having American Indians work in gold mines, but that his conduct was normal for his time & the American Indians were treated better than the way they treated eachother. The Catholic Advent discusses this.

Harvey Bernard Milk was to repeat a homosexual statutory rapist even if SFJeff, Perriquine, etc. say otherwise & I don't believe they mean it when they deny it. Straight activities are normal while gay/lesbian activities are to repeat comparable to drug use. Harvey Milk homolested a drug junky teen boy as Silhouette has said which is dirty on Harvey Milk's part. Gay/lesbian groups can deny this all they want but I don't believe they're saying what they believe. Anyhow, just wanted to add something new to this rerun show.

 

Harvey Milk is dead...WTF?

 

Yes, and so is Saddam Hussein. But if people were organizing to promote Saddam Hussein's persona as an "ambassador for human rights", the topic of Saddam Hussein would not be dead.

It is the topic of putting a person who is guilty of crimes against humanity out as an "ambassador for promoting humanity' that is the quite live topic here.

Try to pay attention.