Should Harvey Milk Have Been A Registered Sex-Offender?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Silhouette, Feb 15, 2012.

?

Would Meghan's Law Apply To Harvey Milk If He Was Alive Today Doing The Same Things?

  1. Yes, he should be registered as a sex-offender according to Law.

    35 vote(s)
    64.8%
  2. No, he was within his rights to have sex with the 16 year old because they were reportedly in love.

    4 vote(s)
    7.4%
  3. Maybe, if the teen was coerced like "I'll give you a place to sleep if I can sodomize you".

    3 vote(s)
    5.6%
  4. Other [explained in a reply]

    12 vote(s)
    22.2%
  1. Jarlaxle

    Jarlaxle Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    8,939
    Likes Received:
    461
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Not just Silly, unfortunately...there are lots of Neanderthals (like snowisfun) in the world.

    Of course...classic Silly The Human Spambot. When called out, she simply keeps repeating the same things over and over and over in the hopes someone will believe it. Sad, actually.
     
  2. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Look at the poll.

    Apparently it's more than just me that can see how perverse it is to mandate that children emulate a child predator...

    Like I said, just because people aren't weighing in on this conversation because gays have effectively trained them to fear standing up to the Agenda-steamroller doesn't mean they don't have private opinions they bring to the voting booth.

    Look what happened in CA with Prop 8. Before, even just days before, gays were touting that it was all over, that Prop 8 was "going down" because a majority of Californians supported gay marraige.

    And then Prop 8 handily won.

    I call it "the Prop 8 syndrome" and it's happening here too. Just look at the poll. I know you can see it at the top of the thread..
     
  3. JeffLV

    JeffLV Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    4,883
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    This forum is not exactly full of silent people afraid to voice their opinion. Unlike in the real world, this forum is anonymous.

    This forum is also not representative of the real world. This forum attracts impassioned people, or people with an agenda or cause.

    Your poll also does not mean those on the forum or elsewhere think gays are a danger to children. It's an expression of opinion about Harvey milk. You make a logical leap thinking this or your argument in general means gays are a danger to children.

    So I challenge you again: if gays are a danger to children, there's no need to dance around it with tangential topics, pointing at the bits and pieces of evidence that there might be an elephant in the room. Show us the source for that 33%. The bigger elephant in the room is why you have not yet done so and are just dancing around with tangential topics. If gays are really a danger to children, direct evidence should be able to show it.
     
  4. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I guess you're kind of a bigot then, like an intellectual snob. You're betting that people in general aren't smart enough [like you right?] to connect the dots.

    I'm betting they are. BTW, I thought your argument was that Milk wasn't guilty. Now you're saying the majority voted him as sex offender as if he was. Can't have it both ways. People can figure stuff out.

    We have

    1. Harvey Milk, admitting to and documented by his accredited journalist friend, [with a reputation for cutting honesty] as having sodomized a drug addicted and mentally ill minor.

    2. Gays across the board choosing the same man to head up their PR campaign to children in California under the sexualized "gay history" mandated curriculum [introduced and pushed as a Bill to that state's Senate by an openly gay-activist representative].

    3. Gays across the board when this obvious perversion of mentoring is pointed out, jumping first to say "Milk never did those things to kids!" and then when that falls flat saying "Just because he did doesn't mean gays back that sort of thing up!"


    And yet they do, by choosing him.

    Logical minds can therefore deduce that at the very least, organized gays promoting child predator Harvey Milk as an ambassador to children means gays agree that adults' sexuality trumps children's rights to protection.

    And in related news...the outcry against that coach sodomizing a minor boy and more recently the teacher in LA feeding his semen to the upper end of the GI tract in children, is made by the same blind liberal supporters as those who line up and promote Harvey Milk to kids in school as a "gay hero".

    Amazing. Political blindness is just utterly amazing.
     
  5. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How incredibly dishonest.

    First of all you pretend that a vote here on the boards is reflective of anything but the few people who have responded.

    But of more importantly of course, you continue to lie.

    You lie about what Shilts said.

    You lie about what Milks said.

    No matter how many times we have challenged you, you still have yet to provide a single quote by anyone OTHER THAN YOURSELF to support "as having sodomized a drug addicted and mentally ill minor."

    So that begs the question- again and again:

    Is your position so tenuous that the only way you can support it is to lie about the facts?

    Is your anti-homosexual agenda so important to you that you are willing to lie to convince others?
     
  6. JeffLV

    JeffLV Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    4,883
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Anybody with an open mind and two brain cells to rub togeather shuold be smart enough to find it highly conspicuous that you STILL REFUSE TO SHOW YOUR DIRECT EVIDENCE. The conclusions you try to draw should be held highly suspect if it can't (or won't) be substantiated with direct evidence, if it exists.

    It's like you trying to argue the world is flat, based on the fact the fact that it looks flat and feels flat. Is this evidence? Sure, and was conclusive evidence for centuries - but it's nothing in the face of direct evidence to the contrary.

    Call this intellectual bigotry if you like, but some evidence is much more relevant. Your refusal to present is highly suspect and at the core of a dishonest debate that you are centering on an appeal to emotion - a red herring fallacy, distracting from more relevant evidence and debate.
     
  7. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wow Jeff, you're sounding a little crazy now actually. Back and forth,

    "Milk didn't do anything, wait, he did but it shouldn't matter, no, no, what I mean is you're a bigot, but er....um...just because he admitted to it with witnesses, that isn't proof, even though it would be in court...what I mean to say is he hasn't been convicted in a court..so it's OK what he did..even though I'm not saying he did anything...."

    You're what's called a mental gymnast. I haven't seen so much spin since the last time I turned on Fox News..lol..

    In violation of several laws in California, Milk bragged about sodomizing drug addicted mentally ill minor Jack McKinley. And he was cited by a gay friend and accredited journalist as "always having a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse issues" pg 180 from the OP.

    And gays chose him as their PR guy to kids in California.

    See, no gymnastics, straightforward, appealing to the logical mind. Deductions anyone?
     
  8. JeffLV

    JeffLV Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    4,883
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Strawman. As much as you'd like it to go on, going back and fourth 500 times with everyone repeating the same information is kinda pointless, so I'm not even going to address your strawman. At this point I'm just addressing the conclusion you're trying to draw from it.


    I wouldn't call it "gymnastics" as much as a logical leap. Your argument doesn't prove gays are a danger to children, nor does your poll prove that people generally think they are. Still waiting for your proof of direct evidence for the 33% if you'd like to prove the first point.

    As for your second point, we don't just have to take your word and deductions for it. We can actually test this theory. I've started a new thread for that purpose. Of course polls are suspect when limited to the population of Political Forum members, but the varience in poll results in this thread and that thread will give some light to how much of a logical leap you've made.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...mosexual-men-women-allowed-teach-schools.html
     
  9. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How incredibly dishonest.


    Of course, you continue to lie.

    You lie about what Shilts said.

    You lie about what Milks said.

    No matter how many times we have challenged you, you still have yet to provide a single quote by anyone OTHER THAN YOURSELF to support "as having sodomized a drug addicted and mentally ill minor."

    So that begs the question- again and again:

    Is your position so tenuous that the only way you can support it is to lie about the facts?

    Is your anti-homosexual agenda so important to you that you are willing to lie to convince others?
    __________________
     
  10. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you have evidence where I am lying, please post the quotes from the book and the page number. Otherwise yours just looks like propaganda and not a true rebuttal.
     
  11. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The homosexual community hates nothing more than the fact that homosexuality is a mental disease/disorder that in many cases has its origins in a malfunction of the olfactory sense. Homosexuals should be treated no better and no worse than anyone else in society who has a mental disease or disorder that results in being a sex predator on children, as defined by law. Among other things, that means that when they become "chicken butchers" and predators on those who are under-age, they are surely and consistently made subject to legal scrutiny and punishment, according to the law!

    Someday, still far in the future, medical science will discover a cure for homosexuality, along with cures for all the other tragic diseases, physical and mental. Until then, we can only do the best we can with the certain threat of punishment for criminals, as determined by the law....
     
  12. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Since homosexuality and other sexual paraphlias are behavioral, the "cure" that isn't far off in the future, but rather right now, is to understand how complusive sexual behaviors are grafted onto youngsters. The people in the business of training sexual orientation in all species of mammals for purposes of semen collection for artificial insemination know that sexuality is plastic at a given age and can be "stamped" any way the handler likes.

    Some people may want to remain gay. Others who don't want to be gay can change. That's "science" as it stands today.

    Well let's look around the net to see if you're right...

    Well, there it is, straight from a gay website..

    I'm thinking, "attack the messenger"..

    How touching, taking one suicidal mentally ill teen sex victim to the bedside of another who just attempted to take his own life from the letdown of the gay promiscuous, non-committed lifestyle in order to rub salt in the wounds of the man formerlly Milk's lover by bringing his new suicidal boy-toy to flaunt in front of the old boy toy...in hospital from attempting suicide from yet another older man dumping him for fresher meat..

    Quaint and lovely that lifestyle is..

    Need any more examples SFJeff? As time allows I'll post more...but I'll leave you with the CDC's findings on the "epidemic" among gay men and let you ponder the cyclic nature that is the social-vector of homosexuality and other learned sexual compulsive behaviors..:

     
  13. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So lets go again with your lies.

    You have repeatedly said that Shilts made the claim "as having sodomized a drug addicted and mentally ill minor."

    But can't back that up because Shilts never made that claim. Your claim is a lie to further your anti-homosexual agenda.


    (what I said)
    No matter how many times we have challenged you, you still have yet to provide a single quote by anyone OTHER THAN YOURSELF to support "as having sodomized a drug addicted and mentally ill minor."

    So, now after weeks of me challenging you to find someone who makes the claim you have been making, you now go looking for something to support your allegation?

    What Silhoute says:

    Well let's look around the net to see if you're right...


    Quote:
    Jack McKinley was a friend and lover of Harvey Milk's for many years. Jack's manic-depressive behavior, made worse by drinking and drugs, escalated to suicide attempts: jumping in front of cars, leaping into the San Francisco Bay, and threatening from a locked bathroom to slash his wrists. http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv/fam/biom1/mackin01.html


    And where does it say: "as having sodomized a drug addicted and mentally ill minor."?

    You may chose to assume that the quote you finally managed to find refers to McKinley when he was a minor- but that would be purely your assumption. You may chose to assume that he was sodomized by Milk, but that would be purely your speculation. You may chose to assume that McKinley was drug addicted and mentally ill when they met, but again that is purely your speculation.

    This entire thread is just once again you using falsehoods to push your own bizarre anti-homosexual agenda.
     
  14. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you need glasses?

    [You "forgot" this one too]

    [quote]“…sixteen-year-old old McKinley was
    looking for some kind of father figure…within a few weeks, McKinley moved
    into Harvey Milk’s Upper West Side apartment…and settled into a middleclass
    domestic marriage..[/quote]

    He had sex with the boy in NY and CA. Age of consent was 17 in NY. Age of consent in CA was 18.
     
  15. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He had sex with the boy in NY and CA. Age of consent was 17 in NY. Age of consent in CA was 18.[/QUOTE]

    So lets go again with your lies.

    You have repeatedly said that Shilts made the claim "as having sodomized a drug addicted and mentally ill minor."

    But can't back that up because Shilts never made that claim. Your claim is a lie to further your anti-homosexual agenda.


    (what I said)
    No matter how many times we have challenged you, you still have yet to provide a single quote by anyone OTHER THAN YOURSELF to support "as having sodomized a drug addicted and mentally ill minor."

    So, now after weeks of me challenging you to find someone who makes the claim you have been making, you now go looking for something to support your allegation?

    What Silhoute says:

    Well let's look around the net to see if you're right...


    Quote:
    Jack McKinley was a friend and lover of Harvey Milk's for many years. Jack's manic-depressive behavior, made worse by drinking and drugs, escalated to suicide attempts: jumping in front of cars, leaping into the San Francisco Bay, and threatening from a locked bathroom to slash his wrists. http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv/fam/biom1/mackin01.html

    And where does it say: "as having sodomized a drug addicted and mentally ill minor."?

    You may chose to assume that the quote you finally managed to find refers to McKinley when he was a minor- but that would be purely your assumption. You may chose to assume that he was sodomized by Milk, but that would be purely your speculation. You may chose to assume that McKinley was drug addicted and mentally ill when they met, but again that is purely your speculation.

    This entire thread is just once again you using falsehoods to push your own bizarre anti-homosexual agenda.
     
  16. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, assumptions are made apart from eyewitness testimony.

    So you're saying Jack McKinley became mentally ill as a result of his exposure to Harvey Milk? I'll agree to that. Except that the eyewitness also described Milk as handpicking his minor sex targets FOR MENTAL ILLNESS AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE ISSUES.

    Harvey Milk "..always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse issues". [page 180, The Mayor of Castro Street; the Life and Times of Harvey Milk, by Randy Shilts.]
     
  17. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63


    There was no trial, no witnesses, and no witness testimony. People not in a court cannot offer testimony and if this ever got to a court we'd have to establish the author actually saw any of this to offer witness testimony.​
     
  18. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course you are assuming- since you still cannot find a single quote which says what you are claiming. You either are 'assuming' or you are flat out lying- either one is pretty sorry.


    ANOTHER FLAT OUT LIE.

    WHY DO YOU HAVE A NEED TO LIE TO FURTHER YOUR AGENDA?


    I never said that, nor implied that I said that. What I have pointed out repeatedly is that you have not once provide any evidence to support your claims.



    So lets go again with your lies.

    Note your quote above- you even lie about what Shilts says- again...

    You have repeatedly said that Shilts made the claim "as having sodomized a drug addicted and mentally ill minor."

    But can't back that up because Shilts never made that claim. Your claim is a lie to further your anti-homosexual agenda.


    (what I said)
    No matter how many times we have challenged you, you still have yet to provide a single quote by anyone OTHER THAN YOURSELF to support "as having sodomized a drug addicted and mentally ill minor."

    So, now after weeks of me challenging you to find someone who makes the claim you have been making, you now go looking for something to support your allegation?

    What Silhoute says:

    Well let's look around the net to see if you're right...


    Quote:
    Jack McKinley was a friend and lover of Harvey Milk's for many years. Jack's manic-depressive behavior, made worse by drinking and drugs, escalated to suicide attempts: jumping in front of cars, leaping into the San Francisco Bay, and threatening from a locked bathroom to slash his wrists.

    And where does it say: "as having sodomized a drug addicted and mentally ill minor."?
    You may chose to assume that the quote you finally managed to find refers to McKinley when he was a minor- but that would be purely your assumption. You may chose to assume that he was sodomized by Milk, but that would be purely your speculation. You may chose to assume that McKinley was drug addicted and mentally ill when they met, but again that is purely your speculation.

    This entire thread is just once again you using falsehoods to push your own bizarre anti-homosexual agenda.
     
  19. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Except you know that the author is dead.

    All one needs is reasonable belief children could be harmed, not a prosecution, to make this an issue.

    Just like if you saw a drunk guy loading kids into his car. If he wansn't prosecuted or had no criminal record even, you'd still be liable if those kids got hurt.
     
  20. Slyhunter

    Slyhunter New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2010
    Messages:
    9,345
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm missing something here, Why did the liberals make a movie about Milk acting like he was some kind of hero to look up to?
     
  21. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Slyhunter, "liberals" didn't make a movie about him. Very likely GLAAD had a great deal to do with it. What I'm trying to point out, among other things, is that being opposed to the gay agenda is not a political thing. I know plenty of "liberals" who privately question what the gay agenda is all about while publicly seeming to go along with it so as to not make waves among friends.

    That's the wrong thing to do. And it's the wrong thing to do precisely because as we all knew, this thing has wound up in an indoctrinization program to children in schools with a child-sex criminal heading up "gay heros" they have to learn about only positive things.

    Yet any child can also go to the library and check out "The Mayor of Castro Street" and learn that their "gay hero" Harvey Milk had a hobby of sodomizing drug-addicted, mentally-ill youngsters.

    Gays are trying to spoon-feed [not necessarily a reference to the LA teacher recently] a sanitized, sugared down version of Milk to the kiddies. Their groups have "an approved" "brief" biography of Harvey Milk. Hiding his sex crimes to kids while teaching them to emulate him would be like hiding Hitler's crimes against jews and teaching jewish kids to emulate him as " a german hero".

    It is a direct and umitigatable perversity. And when gays defend him, they act as if the children he harmed in "his legitimate sexual orientation" were just acceptable collateral damage. Yet children are real, separate and the most vulnerable human beings walking around. They of all people need the very FIRST consideration as to rights and protection.

    But gays keep referring to them in language and in deed as just pieces of fresher meat for their sexual consumption, or at the very least we shouldn't get bent about that when it comes to "gay heros" like Harvey Milk...

    FYI Slyhunter. I'm for sane energy [not nuke or petrolium], 100% behind universal healthcare and I am simultaneously against the gay agenda to usurp mainstream values with their own. What political category would you put me in? I vote democrat and occasionally republican if the person seems saner than the democrat.
     
  22. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Instead of just staying silent about Harvey Milk or worse, defending him, gays should just step up to the plate, admit their wrong and renounce Harvey Milk as a gay hero.

    Why won't they? They don't need a conviction. Milk admitted what he did to minors. His gay friend/journalist documented what he did to minors. Just that alone compels gays to renounce him.

    Don't they care about the civil rights of children?
     
  23. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  24. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Since Harvey Milk died before his biography was written by his friend, all we have are eyewitness accounts of what he said and did as documented in the book and elsewhere. According your yardstick, none of those accounts can be believed because an eyewitness to Harvey Milk's unapologetic sodomizing of drug addicted and mentally ill minors is "inadmissable evidence".

    So unless you're planning on resurrecting the dead, you're going to have to take the gold standard we've got as the best word on what went down with Milk.

    Now if Shilts was a gay-hater or some other guy with an axe to grind, I could see dismissing the accounts. But he wasn't. He was a FRIEND of Harvey Milks and Shilts himself was gay. And he was a journalist heralded by his peers as disturbingly honest to a fault; even when it cost him his friends.

    That's a gold standard hard to beat. And the gold-standard wrote of his longtime friend Harvey Milk as always having "a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems" [page 180]

    The gold-standard says it's so. It's in print. Kids can check out this same book from the library. The same kids being taught Harvey Milk is "THE gay hero"...

    Do the math. Are you calling the late Randy Shilts a liar?
     
  25. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63


    Of course we don't. In this country, folks are innocent of a crime until proven guilty. That Harvey has inconveniently been murdered doesn't shift that burden. We don't simply call someone guilty because we don't know otherwise.

    ... and no, a loose interpretation of a sensational book on a celebrities life isn't even close to sufficient proof of a crime to deny someone due process.​
     

Share This Page