Should Harvey Milk Have Been A Registered Sex-Offender?

The word "sex" is a noun in this sentence, not a verb. Think about the implications of that for a minute..

All laws regulate human behavior. Sex the verb is a human behavior. We do not recognize behavioral groups outside religion as "class". I know this is a bit off topic but I was just re-reading that post.

It has to do with the subject because purposefully confusing the two words, "sex" the noun and "sex" the verb allows gays the shoehorn to be able to teach sexual behavior [as seen as to be emulated in "gay heros"] to children in school and make it seem innocent and politically-correct at the same time.

This type of seamless insertion of sexualized content, wiht a child-sex criminal officiating at the "king of gay heros" for children to emulate is precisely how children become sexualized and "primed" for later use. It is a process with pedophiles law enforcement has coined "grooming"...

And it flies in the face of the APA recommendations for not sexualizing children.

Calling yourself "gay" is identifying your very being with a behavior you do. It is sexualizing your very identity.

 

If Harvey Milk is a convicted child molester, then he should have to wear GPS neck bracelet, which tracks him, can incapacitate him, and if necessary terminate him, if he attempts to have sex with children or animals.

 

Again, we have an example of you reading into things to try to scrap togeather any form of evidence you can.

You claim that teaching about sexuality, or having rules that schools should not demonize a sexuality is the same thing as "sexualizing" children. Even the great APA says it's wrong. But then let's look at your source about how they define sexualizing:

This definition of "sexualizing" does not exclude teaching about sexuality or putting a stop on demonizing sexual behaviors. If you really objectedto this, you'd be complaining about Sex Ed, which is much more common form of education about sexuality... but of course you're not, your only beef is with how homosexuality is understood.

You're using the fallacy of equivocation to suggest teaching about sexuality = sexualization, and then you're applying a double standard against homosexuals... as usual. Your posts rarely amount to anything more than you reading into things and attempting to interpret them any way possible to support your position.

Again, look at the meaning of "sexualizing", and you'll see that calling yourself gay is not the same as sexualizing your identity. It's identifying a part of it, and a part that society in particular identifies you by. It's apparently who feels gays identify themselves ONLY by their sexuality, to the point that that's the only value they see in themselves and others. So it's YOU who is sexualizing others.

 

Split hairs all you like SFJeff. You're once again failing to see the core issue of this thread. Let me spell it out for you again:

Gays, like yourself, in organized and across-the-board fashion, reflective therefore of their subcultural base values, knowingly chose a man who openly had illegal anal sex repeatedly with a minor who was mentally ill and on drugs at the time. This was documented by the man's friend who was an accredited journalist and was in no way biased against the man because the journalist was also gay.

So this man who preyed on minors who were mentally ill and on drugs, was chosen by gays across the board to "represent". And not just represent to anyone, but to children in California schools as a "gay hero". That is a loud statement to the world of what the gay movement is about and what it embraces, and why we should take a second look at gay marraige that also kicks down the barn door for gay adoptions of at-risk children [as all kids are as orphans].

That's core issue of this thread #1.

I have given gays an out here, repeatedly. All gays have to do is say, "oops, we made a mistake". You cannot argue what has been documented as to Harvey Milk's behavior with minors. The acts were owned by Milk himself and reported by his friend in a book that anyone can check out in their library. The only option gays are left with to salvage their subculture's connection with child molestation is to renounce their support for Harvey Milk.

Seems simple enough right? They could claim in various groups that their leadership "didn't know".."didn't read the book" or "never heard that part about Milk". But no, that's not what's happening is it? Which brings me to core issue #2 of this thread:

Gays are lining up in unison to knowingly-defend a child predator as their PR representative to the world. It is the same issue as #1, with a new twist. Even after being re-reminded of Milk's crimes, gays are instead trying to de-criminalize preying sexually on drug addicted and/or mentally ill or just minor children.

I wish I had more to say but that is all there is to say about that.

 

Since Harvey Milk was:

a) never a convicted child molester
b) never accused of being a child molester
c) was murdered 30 years ago by a twinkie eating homophobe

you have nothing worry about then.

 

Oh so many lies...so easy to disprove

Do you always assume that anyone who proves you to be wrong is gay? Have you gotten owned so many times by gays that you just assume that every time it happens now that the person is gay? Or is it that you can't envision a world where a non-gay would be the one pointing out your lies? Not that it is relevant, but I am not gay- just very happy.

And once again I will point out that it is a lie to claim that Randy Shilts documented any such thing- the very quotes you posted do not once say that Milk had anal sex with a minor.

You are just lieing when you make that claim.

That you feel the need to lie to make your point, shows that this is just part of your anti-homosexual agenda, and your attempt to equate homosexuality with pedophilia.

But more importantly- why do you keep lieing about the facts?

 

If Randy Shilt's "lies" are so easy to disprove, why haven't you done so? Harvey Milk's longtime gay journalist friend had a penchant for telling the truth and honesty in journalism, even when it cost him friends. Gays spat on him as he walked down Castro Street for a piece he did on the need to close gay bath houses to stem the spread of HIV. They called him in print "a traitor to his kind".

Your beef is with him, not with me. It would be so easy for your ilk to simply say you made a mistake. You cannot both laud Shilt's book that also paints Milk out as a hero but at the same time denounce his book that depicts Harvey Milk sodomizing a minor who was mentally ill and on drugs...for saying that Milk "always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems.." (pg 180) Can't have it both ways. Either the book depicts the truth or it doesn't.

Take up your argument with The Mayor of Castro Street The Life and Times of Harvey Milk.

I notice two more posters feel Harvey Milk qualified as a sex-offender since my last visit here..

 

Look up the quote from page 180

Harvey Milk "always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems".

His having sex with 16 year old, drug addicted, mentally ill Jack McKinley was illegal in both New York and California where the crimes occured.

Cut-and-dried.

You'r defending his crimes is beginning to become the important issue with this thread. Like I said, bow out while you can. The graceful exit would be to admit gays made a mistake choosing Milk as their "hero" ambassador to children in CA schools.

 

Like I said before and I will say it again- you are lying about what Shilts said.

Case in point is your quote right there. Not one word that implies statutory rape or sodomy- but you think it does.

Since he was never convicted of any crimes, nor accused of any crimes, nor is there any evidence of any crimes- what am I defending, other than the truth?

 

Is there evidence? Yes, the word "penchant" along with the context of gay sex rampant throughout Harvey Milk's life. Also the word "marraige" used here from the OP and the book:

Now you will argue that "penchant" meant for conversation perhaps and "marraige" was "a sexless platonic relationship", and I will point out that he openly admitted to having sex with the boys while alive and in his biography written by R. Shilts.

You are grasping at straws. You are beginning to look desperate.

Just gracefully back out now and save face. Denounce Harvey Milk as a gay hero and save your cause while you still can.

 

I want to point out something interesting to you Jeff. Something that may have escaped your notice. It really didn't hit home to me until today when I was looking at the poll again.

As we have been going back and forth, the numbers on the "yes" column for "should Milk have been a registered sex offender" keep inching up. Yet it really has been just you and me, and occasionally perriquine back and forth.

What is interesting about that is, there is a vast majority of posters reading this thread who are being swayed to or already think that gays made a major mistake picking Harvey Milk as their PR guy. And yet I'm the only one talking about it here.

Let that sink in for a minute.

I'm the only one talking about it here because most people are too afraid to confront the gay steamroller. It's the Prop 8 thing all over again: "Polling shows proposition 8 will go down". Yet reality showed it passed handily. It's the Prop-8 PC syndrome again. All those quiet voices who vote.

Is that why gays are trying to take away people's right to vote on gay marraige? Because they know? Because people see where it's going, like promoting a child sex offender like Milk comes hand in hand with "gay rights"?

You folks meet with defeat again and again and you wonder why. You folks get associated with pedophiles and you wonder why. You folks staunchly defend a man who sodomized a minor boy who was addicted to drugs and mentally ill...who "always" had a "penchant" [for conversation?] "for young waifs with substance abuse problems". And then almost in the same sentence you wail and carry on about gays being associated [unfairly!] with child predators.

I wonder if gays who defend Harvey Milk, knowing who he was and what he did with vulnerable minor boys and very young men are capable of logical thinking at all? I'm sure they are, just not when it comes to some part of their behavior that was forcibly removed from the DSM in the 1970s in the interest of politics and not mental health. Anyone who cannot see the connection between choosing a child predator as their PR guy and then why the general public sees a connection between their behavior and child predation is not playing with a full deck..

 

You are choosing to believe that is what Shilts is saying.

But of course Shilts never says that Milk was having sex or sodomizing any 16 year old. Like I said, Shilts is not lying, you are lying about what Shilts said.

Once again- show me the quotes from Milks that says that.

Once again- show me the quotes from Milks that says that.

Once again- show me the quotes from Milks that says that.

You keep making the claim, and you never show us one quote that says this.

Show me a qoute from Milks or Shilts where either of them say that Milks was having sex with underage boys.

This is my point- prove me wrong and I will stop arguing the point.

 

Reading into things again.

Most likely, those who are putting their vote in this late in the game did not read through all the posts, and are not following the back-and-forth debate. They just stumbled onto the thread, gave a quick read to the OP, and put up their vote. Most probably don't even know who the Harvey Milk was except as presented.

Of course, if you want to take that as you "winning the debate", go ahead. You have a tendency to read into things any way you can to support your own position, this would be nothing new.

You should think again, and think carefully the next time one of these epiphanies hits you. They have a tendency to lead you astray.

 

Feeling, or believing do not meet the burden of proof. Not to mention your pro-votes are obviously coming from your side of the ideological fence. Was the man ever convicted, or even charged? No. Also, the the gay as pedophile straw-man argument I consistently see pedaled here is the basest form argument, especially considering it's most prevalent correlative comes from within the sexually repressive theism's that so violently rage against homosexuality.

 

Here's the catch agoginabox. If a person has ample reason to believe [not legal proof but ample reason] that a child might be in danger by their exposure to an adult or situation, the CA law requires a person act to protect that child from expected harm.

To give you a scenario that matches your claims, imagine you walked by a man who, not convicted or even arrested nor a book written about his chronic drinking, stunk to high heaven of alcohol. And let's say that man had three children with him and he was loading them into a car to drive them somewhere. You are mandated by California law and laws in many other states too intervene. If you don't, you are guilty of a misdemeanor, or even a felony depending on the situation.

"Health" includes mental health. The APA has already spoken about sexualizing of children as a mental health problem:

Tying "gay" with "historical hero" is the same as sexualizing accomplishments. Teaching that to children in school is against APA guidelines for a child's mental health. Endangering, or permitting to be endangered, a child's mental health is against the law.

Adding salt to that crime is choosing a man who openly admitted to and was DOCUMENTED by his friend, and accredited journalist as having sodomized a mentally ill, drug addicted minor child as 'the quintessential gay hero" in schools easily qualifies as child endangerment with or without a conviction on the man documented to have done these things to minors. So returning to the scenario at the top of the drunk man, the equivalent would be a man never caught or convicted, openly swigging off a flask of booze, staggering and bragging about drinking, going to load kids in his car to drive somewhere and you not stepping in to do something about it.

Just because gays are forgiving of sex crimes against children and of teaching sexualized identities and accomplishments to children does not make those actions any less illegal. Anyone else who permits these actions to happen to children is also guilty of child enganderment under California and other states' laws..

 

The fact of the matter is that you are the only person who believes in your theory. No one else buys your whole premise that Gays are a threat to children. No one buys your premise that California law is applicable in this case at all.

You continue to lie about the facts regarding Harvey Milk, in order to pursue your own anti-homosexual agenda.

 

You just jump all over the place. I asked if he was convicted, or even charged. No, he was not. The relevant penal statutes are immaterial as obviously they were never invoked. Basically you just said he's guilty because you "feel" like it. Also, the relevant penal code as to who must report is this:

4. Who Reports?
Legally mandated reporters
include a wide variety of positions,
which are as follows:
a. Mandated reporters in public
positions include: a teacher; an
instructional aide, a teacher’s aide,
or a teacher’s assistant employed
by any public or private school, a
classified employee of any public
school; an administrative officer or
supervisor of child welfare and
attendance, or a certificated pupil
personnel employee of any public
or private school; an administrator
of a public or private day camp; an
administrator or employee of a
public or private youth center,
youth recreation program, or youth
organization; an administrator or
employee of a public or private
organization whose duties require
direct contact and supervision of
children; any employee of a county
office of education or the California
Department of Education, whose
duties bring the employee into
contact with children on a regular
basis; a licensee, an administrator,
or an employee of a licensed
community care or child day care
facility, a headstart teacher; a
licensing worker or licensing
evaluator; a public assistance
worker; an employee of a child
care institution including, but not
limited to, foster parents, group
home personnel, and personnel of
residential care facilities; a social
worker, probation officer, or parole

So, it's not "a person" at all, is it? One must be concise while making arguments in the day and age of the internet because the truth it literally a tab away.

 

It doesn't matter if Harvey Milk was convicted, just like it doesn't matter if the drunk man trying to drive kids is convicted either. If children are placed in danger by being allowed to be exposed to either man's influence, then laws have been broken.

And you're intelligent enough to understand the parallel, you're just trying to act like you aren't.

 

You have yet to establish a danger to children.

Teaching about the gay rights movement does not qualify as "sexualizing children" by any stretch of the imagination. It's like saying teaching about religious persecution is making everything about religion - it's not. It's part of a greater topic: The arbitrary persecution of people for their beliefs, practices or traits. It's not an attempt to define children only by sex, and has nothing to do with sexualizing children. You're reading into things and applying a double standard against homosexuals, again.

If you think gays are actually a danger to children, why don't you demonstrate it - If gays are really a danger to children, it should be directly observable in statistics, not just speculation. Show us the source for that 33% stat.

 

I have a keen sense SFJeff that if an elephant was standing on your chest, you would be gasping to a dumbfounded crowd, "you have to PROVE there's an elephant standing on my chest"

 

Ignorance leads to fear. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate.

Plenty of ignorance and hate from the OP.

A fine Sith he/she would make.

 

I have an even finer example of a Sith RLStones: a man who sodomized a minor, drug addicted and mentally ill child, who is backed by a legion of apologists all wearing the same armor...

 

If you were telling me that an elephant was standing my chest, I would examine the evidence. And if your claim about the elephant was just as false as what you claim Shilts said, I would point out that lie also.

The fact of the matter is that you are the only person who believes in your theory. No one else buys your whole premise that Gays are a threat to children. No one buys your premise that California law is applicable in this case at all.

You continue to lie about the facts regarding Harvey Milk, in order to pursue your own anti-homosexual agenda.

 

SFJeff, you know that's rubbish-many agree with Silhouette on this such as me. It's a bad idea to have gays as schoolteachers. Kids must understand that gay/lesbian activities are comparable to crack smoking. This topic has rehashed itself but you know SFJeff that Harvey B. Milk committed homosexual statutory rape on an underage boy. Anyhow, it's best for gays to quit gay activities & it's good to be anti-homo just as it's good to be against crack smoking. This topic has become repeat & just adding again to the rerun. Maybe this topic should be closed