Should Harvey Milk Have Been A Registered Sex-Offender?

I do pay attention..but there are far too many evil twisted people out there that are alive and drawing breath, not moldering in some hole in the ground, to which attention should be paid. Worrying about some feces compressor that walked the earth 30 years ago and whether or not he 'should have been a registered sex offender' not only is an attempt to lock the door after the horse gets out...but as a topic, serves no relevant purpose.

 

but nobody is putting a person who is "guilty of cimes against humanity" up here.

you keep making the unsubstantiated claim that you can't back up, and you keep getting called on it.

 

Silhouette has repeatedly substantiated the claim about Harvey Bernard Milk being a homosexual statutory rapist who did it with a 16 year old boy & Harvey Milk also had sex in parks Your comment is an eg. of people denying something though they know it's true. I think you know that Harvey Milk is a homosexual statutory rapist, yet you deny it which is why you can't be taken seriously. But different posters saying the same thing to deny this doesn't change the fact that Silhouette is right.

 

Wait a minute...Harv was a perv. That's not the issue..there's nothing to substantiate. Still, the whole matter is irrelevant. He's been dead for some time now,,,what difference will it make?

 

nope. nowhere in any of her posts has she substantiated that claim. this is why she continues to be called on it.

 

perv is subjective. the issue is the repeated lie by sillhouette that harvey milk was a sex criminal, or pedophile.

 

That sums it up, and as far as I'm concerned this thread is likewise not just mostly dead, it's cold, in the ground and the worms are starting to feast. If Silhouette wants to continue to abuse its dead corpse, I won't bear witness to that act of necrophilia.

Therefore, unsubscribed.

 

Nowhere has my claim been substantiated except in a book called The Mayor of Castro Street, The Life and Times of Harvey Milk, by Randy Shilts, quotes from the OP as follows:

Jack McKinly, Harvey Milk's 16-year old, underaged, drug addicted and mentally ill child sex object was violated in the ways documented above by accredited gay journalist and longtime friend of Harvey Milk, in the book the quotes were extracted from.

Further, that Milk "always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems" clearly identifies H. Milk as a serial child sexual predator. There couldn't be a more classic description of a repeat sex-offender.

How it is relevant to today of course is that Harvey Milk has been chosen to be celebrated at schools across California where "gay appreciation" courses are mandated now by law as "the gay historical hero".

Get it? Taught to kids as a hero...a man who victimized kids sexually. Irony missing the dullard posters here still? Or is yours merely a gang-up game of pretend, trying to bleed away pages and this thread in hopes that nobody signficant will notice the blunder on behalf of the gay community at large in promoting a child-sex criminal, dead or not, as "their ambassador to children"?

I already told you, this topic isnt' going away until the gay community stands up in unison and recognizes another downtrodden sector of humanty: child victims of suppressed sex crimes against them. Until the gay community stands up and denounces Harvey Milk as their ambassador in any capacity, they are giving their stance against children to the world and expecting the world to embrace it without question.

You DO NOT choose a man who openly professed crimes against children to officate as your ambassador to children without consequences of someone drawing a correlation to your base values as a movement. You cannot keep pulling the wool over people's eyes forever. Children deserve as much promotion and civil rights as any other class of people. And right now, using Harvey Milk as the gay icon is looking to me like gays consider children as sex objects not worthy of consideration in even the slightest way. Evidenced by their choice and staunch defense of a child-sex criminal to head up their civil rights movement..

I will say it again: The correct thing to do is to stop struggling in the quicksand and pull yourselves out before it's too late. Denounce Harvey Milk right now and prove to the world you care about children. Because if the world thinks you don't care about children, and have a moral code that says "defend adult's compulsions to prey on children sexually" then your prayers for marraige privelege and the adoption of at-risk children [orphans] that would automatically grant you will quite likely be denied.

In intend to make Harvey Milk an issue until he is withdrawn from the list of gay heros taught to children in CA or any other schools.

 

Then why can't you actually show us anything from that book that says what you say it says?

You keep posting quotes that don't say that Milk ever raped a 16 year old.

If you want me to stop confronting you every time you make this claim, show us some documented evidence to support your claim.

Otherwise just admit you have nothing but your suspicions.

 

Prove it- copy and paste where he has 'substantiated' the claim.

Man up and prove your post.

 

You have 5 quotes listed above. Where in these 5 quotes does it say that Milk ever had sex or sodomised a 16 year old?

Good for you. You are wasting your energy here then...since most of the participants aren't even from California.

You might start by peddling the truth, rather than your own version of the truth.

 

Me, my brethren of PEDO and our puppets in the California State Legislature will consider your case. Ultimately the decision on who to memorialize and what criteria must be met to be appropriate for that status is up to that legislature and those who elect them. You don't have the right to unilaterally decide the criteria for who can be memorialized and why. To do such, and to accuse those who support Harvey milk day of supporting child molestation is an accusation against the Californian state legislature and those who they represent... A rediculous accusation that you mean only to apply as a double standard against gay groups. Saying that failure to denounce him as a civil rights activists amounts to believing children should have no rights or protections and that they should be used as sex objects is rediculous to the point of being laughable. It's you sticking words and motives in people's mouths to support your own beliefs.

Your believe that you have the right to demand this double standard is as il-conceived as your though that I represent some organization of homosexuals. Your supreme confidence blinds you and makes you only see things that support your own beliefs.

 

again, nowhere is your claim substantiated. your source is not saying what you want it to say.

 

Apparently it is saying what I it says because each time I log onto this thread, someone else has voted "yes" to "Should Harvey Milk Have Been A Registered Sex Offender"

I realize those heavily engaged in denial mechanisms, even so blatant as to misconstrue simple written english, to preserve their own self-reflection as clean and undisturbed will never, ever be convinced that Harvey Milk sodomizing Jack McKinley, 16, under-aged, mentally ill, addicted to drugs is wrong, or "provable". Even when faced with a tome, written by one of Harvey Milk's close gay friends, an accredited journalist known for his fierce loyalty to the truth in reporting, even when it cost him friends. Even when that tome exhaustively and faithfully documents Harvey Milk's exploitation of very young and drug addicted men.

None of it will convince gay advocates. And perhaps that is the subject of this thread after all eh?

And hence the reason the "yes" column keeps getting fuller in the poll....

Like I said, word to the wise... the proper thing to do is not to engage in desperate spinning or trying like a child to hold your fingers over your eyes and believe nobody can then see you. The proper thing to do is to renounce Harvey Milk as representative of the gay movement.

That is the only thing that will save the movement from being labelled as sympathetic to child sexual predators. You have your life-vest. Now use it.

 

When you gave quotes before- I asked:

You have 5 quotes listed above. Where in these 5 quotes does it say that Milk ever had sex or sodomised a 16 year old?

You still have yet to show a single quote that Harvey Milk sodomized a 16 year old as you continue to claim.

So I will ask again- are you deliberately lieing about what Shilts says, or are you just refusing to provide whatever evidence convinces you of what you say?

Are you so blinded by your homophobia that you are willing to lie about what Shilts says?

 

Do you honestly believe that? Harvey happens to be a convenient target you found, but if it weren't him, it would be something else. People will label us regardless, just as they've done before and after Harvey was born. Harvey Milk Day wasn't even created by gay groups, it was voted on, twice, by the popularly-elected California State Legislature and signed by the Governor.... And even then, EVEN THEN it's our fault and we get labeled. (Well I should say you've labeled us, as I actually haven't seen your argument being pushed by anyone else)

Whether we like it or not, Harvey Milk was an important figure in the gay rights movement. He was well known, important, and was made a martyr for his cause - his personal life aside, that's a holiday in the making. Would I have chosen him as a leader to memorialize with a state holiday? No, I probably wouldn't. He's too controversial and an easy target.

But regardless of what I do or say, it doesn't matter. If it's not Harvey Milk, it will be something else. Even in the face of direct evidence, showing no link between pedophilia and gay men, people like you will connect the dots and misinterpret statistics to draw the link regardless. And the best response I've seen to that so far is that you would not give me the "privilege" to see your source, that 2% of the population are responsible for 33% of child molestations.

I'm still interested in seeing your source, if you would do me the "privilege" of backing up what you say when you make an accusation like that. Perhaps in another thread where it's more relevant?

 

Classic strawman. Because even if your allegation is true, it doesn't change the fact that gays across the board, knowingly chose a child-sex criminal to head up their PR campaign to children in California, and the gay movement in general. That's very typical of bigotry. In this case towards the "non-human" group known as children. After all, they can't vote right? They have no power. Why take them seriously? Proof of that is choosing a child sex predator for them to emulate. What you fail to see is that doing so is the equivalent of choosing a white southern lynch mob from the 1800s to head up the NAACP, or choosing a nazi to officiate as a rabbi, or choosing Mike Tyson to be the head of the woman's rights movement. Children are the last group of individuals who have no voice in this "equal rights" conversation.

Organized gays choosing Harvey Milk to be mandated to be childrens' new "hero" in CA schools is sinister, malignant and as twisted as it gets. And what do gays do when called on it? Defend it as perfectly acceptable. *shudder*... And the most ironic thing of all is this maligned group, this silent scream, represents ALL of us; since all of us every one started out life as a defenseless and vulnerable child, just like Jack McKinley. Harvey Milk exploiting McKinley's unfortunate homelessness, obvious mental depression and drug addiction as his "..[sexual] penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems" [pg 180 The Mayor of Castro Street by R. Shilts] is unforgiveable, unmitigatable. And it parallels something of a generational phenomenon in the gay culture, an inherited behavior problem since Milk himself started life by being molested as a boy by older men...

What my opinion is or isn't as to the rainbow-push isn't relevent. My opinion doesn't lessen what Harvey Milk did to Jack McKinley, 16 year old minor, mentally ill drug-addict.

I get it. You think if you can make the topic "how bad Silhouette is" maybe people won't notice y'all chose a child sex predator for your mascot. And like I told you before, the only proper "out" for your unenviable position is to simply see the elephant in the living room for what it is, admit to it and show it the door.

But still the defending by GLBTQs of the indefensible goes on and on and on...

Kinda makes the readers here wonder you know? Makes you wonder if removing sexualized identities from the DSM was such a hot idea after all..

 

What child sex criminal? As far as I can tell California has never promoted any child sex criminal to anyone?

For instance California has never promoted Roman Polanski, a convicted child sex criminal. I am not aware of any convicted or even accused sex criminal California is promoting.

Who are you talking about?

And we come back to your general anti-homosexual theme again.

Which is the real point of all of your threads.

 

Do you often play dumb or is this just your current strategy to get people from noticing gays picked Harvey Milk as their ambassador to children. When defending him looks too seedy, you just play dumb?

So gay advocates [if we take you as their yardstick] either defend child sex criminals or are just dumb? I hardly think the latter is the case. I tend to have seen way more of the former.

Fun fact for the day. Pedophiles often lure children into their mental space later to initiate sex acts with them, by using milk, cookies and other treats combined with very subtle sexualized talk, later getting stronger as the child is gradually lured into the acts with the perpetrator. Law enforcement calls the syndrome "grooming"[Google it]... The more you know....

 

Strawman. Gays, and in particular "gays across the board", did not make that decision. It was made by the california state legislature. And you've already heard from several gays/gay supporters, even in this very thread, that don't agree with the decision. You just refuse to hear it.

Strawman. Nobody said that they should emulate every characteristic of his personal and professional life.

Strawman. A "lynch mob" is an obvious extreme, and directly conflicts with the goals of the NAACP.

Harvey Milk, on the other hand, was not executing an obvious extreme.... his "crimes" were borderline, and legal in most states where 16 is the age of consent. Unlike a lynch mob member being the head of NAACP where there is an obvious contradiction, Harvey being memorialized for his contributions to civil rights is not an obvious contradiction.

Strawman. Gays, and in particular "gays across the board", did not make that decision. It was made by the california state legislature. And you've already heard from several gays/gay supporters, even in this very thread, that don't agree with the decision. You just refuse to hear it.

Strawman. "defenseless vulnerable child" is your own opinion. Most states the age of consent is 16. Does that "defenseless vulnerable child" suddenly become an adult when he crosses the state boarder? In one state he can give consent, and in the next he's a helpless vulnerable child? I certainly don't find it acceptable for a man his age to be in a relationship with a 16 year old, but you are certainly trying to paint a worse picture than what it was.

I've already said I wouldn't have made the decision to give harvey milk a holiday, as have several others. It doesn't change the fact that he was still a prominent figure in the gay rights movement, and it doesn't change the fact that the decision is left to the california state legislature - not us. And it doesn't change the fact that you're going to hold it against us anyway.

 

No, Silly. As Jeff posted above, "Harvey Milk Day wasn't even created by gay groups, it was voted on, twice, by the popularly-elected California State Legislature and signed by the Governor..."

Pleaser keep rereading the bold text until it sinks in.

 

Yes Jar, and gay groups across the board had no coercive influence on those decisions, nor are any of them involved in pushing "Harvey Milk Day" on children at California schools.

Let's look again..

 

If you want to assume that the slate legislature and governor were coerced, go right ahead. It's as outlandish as anything else you've put forward.

You're trying to position the gay groups though they're in an extreme position, when their position is no more extreme than even the popularly elected state legislature. Again, you're reading into things, picking out the parts you like, and ignoring the rest.



I've decided to give a lesson on how to read into things:


-Assume Harvey Milk Day represents an action by gays to promote child molestation. This is true despite the fact that it was actually the california state legislature that designated the holiday.

-In recognition of harvey milk day, some school event organizers thought it would be cute to give away milk duds, milk and cookies, and other food items, especially if it had the word "milk" in it. Despite it being common to give out food in any variety of events, if you want to be a true pro at reading into things, you should take this as an opportunity to draw the parallel with the stereotypical creepy man, offering candy to a little girl. Thus these events represent a "grooming" for pedophilia.

-Forget what "Epidemic" means. Epidemic now means "the majority", and it's appropriate to take a singular quote from one source and attribute to it all sorts of causality and scope that was never implied.

-Find some website created by some pedophile, and assume it represents the culture of all gays - because we all know you should believe everything you see on the web.

-And my personal favorite, "We" represents me and my secret organization of homosexuals, secretly working together to dominate the forums. Silhouette views herself as an opponent to this organization, fighting back… kinda like Russell Crowe, secretly fighting imaginary Soviet spies in that movie, "A Beautiful Mind". That really was a good movie...

-Claim all gays are supporting the promotion of Harvey Milk for his civil rights, and then read into it and assume it means they're supporting child molestation. Do so despite the fact that not even all gays/gay supporters in this thread have taken that position.

And of course, no professional at reading into things should consider evidence to the contrary. They should instead find a bias source, use it to confirm their own beliefs, and then refuse to share the source for others to review because it's a "privilege" to see it.

 

It's been a long project, the trained-silence via the politically-correct machine that has been chanting that people see gay sex as an identity instead of a behavior. Fall in line, or else... Like the crowd from "The Emperors Clothes", who wants to be the first to say the obvious and be shunned?