Should Harvey Milk Have Been A Registered Sex-Offender?

And again- where are these eyewitnesses accounts of Milk sodomizing minors?

Why do you keep making these claims- and never back them up?

No, I am calling you a liar.

Since Shilts never once said that Milk sodomized minors. But you keep claiming he does.

Shilts is not the liar- you are.

 

But the laws in California, where Harvey Milk the documented child-sex criminal is being forced on kids as a "gay hero" are clear: You do not need a conviction to act on behalf of children to protect them. If you fail to act you can be convicted of a crime.

So there's that little legal conundrum when it comes to child protection. We are talking about child-protection, not gay child-predator protection. If a drunk man is going to load kids into a car to drive them, and the man has no conviction of any crime, you can go to jail for failing to intervene on behalf of the children.

NO CONVICTION NECESSARY.

 

Carried over from the temporary forum in response to the XL:

16 year old, drug addict with mental illness named Jack McKinley.

"Whatever" would apply if it was legal, which it isn't on three counts. "Whatever" would apply also if he weren't being held out as the ultimate "gay hero" for kids in California.

No, not in New York [age 17] nor California [age 18] at the time the crimes were committed. Also, there is no age limit for having sex with someone under the influence of drugs nor for those who are mentally ill. In both of those instances also in California at least, where he sodomized the 16 year old mentally ill drug addict, the mentally ill nor the drugged are considered legally able to consent to sex.

That question is a two-parter. The first is who actually cares. That would be the police and parents of school aged kids forced to learn that a child sodomizer is their "hero". Here's the penal code to refresh:

Part two of the last question "who cares" is "who should care"? That's the same answer as the first part: the police and parents with a third addition: the GLBT lobby who is associating, promoting and defending Harvey Milk, and everything he stood for..


From the biography of Harvey Milk:

 

What was the nature of this mental illness? Id say most mental illnesses, except the really serious cases, do not strip the ability to give informed consent.

 

Drug addiction. And he regularly tried to commit suicide. He was extremely depressed and if memory serves, severly bipolar. He was "searching for a father figure" in his depression which Milk was more than happy to fulfill, while also taking the role of the minor's "husband", while sodomizing him. Imagine what further damage that did to the poor boy's mind? He was homeless, an addict, without a family, looking for a dad to make his inner turmoil right again. To say he was vulnerable and highly suggestable would be to say that water is wet. Milk "played daddy" while also sodomizing him. And then when the minors mental baggage became "too heavy" for the promiscuous boy-sex fancier Harvey Milk, with his "penchant for young waifs with substance abuse issues", he simply dumped him and moved on. As the minor kept trying to contact "his only father", Milk became completely distant from him, even joking that the boy shouldn't "make a mess" once when he called Milk suicidal, alone and desperate after Milk had had his fun with him and tossed him aside like he had so many other boys before and after him.

Read the book The Mayor Of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk, by gay journalist Randy Shilts. That gays are promoting this man to kids is ...well..."telling"...that's the best word I can think of to describe it.

 

You have a very vivid imagination. But why use facts when your fictional account plays so much better?

 

You missed the OP?

From Harvey Milk's biography, written by his accredited gay journaist friend: I will underline the points that reflect what I said.

I said what I did from the quotes from the book. Harvey Milk was sodomizing an underaged minor who was suicidal [mentally ill] and a drug addict [mentally ill] at the same time. Those are three felonies in California against a minor, against a person who is unable to give consent from being mentally ill, and against a person under the influence of an intoxicating substance rendering him also unable to give legal consent. Three sodomies with a person unable to give consent. He belongs in jail.

Exacerbating factors to those crimes are Milk posing as a father figure at the same time he officiated as the "husband" of the susceptible boy he was sodomizing. And also Milk's indifference to the boy's suffering after his abuses of him clearly magnified the intensity of mental anguish in the boy-then-adult.

Harvey Milk belonged in prison. Harvey Milk has no place being promoted to children in any capacity.

 

I am not sure. This seems to be a case that could go either way. Sometimes there is an uncertain zone between what is morally acceptable and what is wrong.

 

I'm trying to get gay people to see why any sane person [there's your hint] would support a pedophile to children as a hero. That I would even have to type that sentence doesn't bode well for the mental health of the reader who questions it or needs to read it to suddenly understand what I'm talking about.

If any rapist was promoted by any group to women as "their hero" people would start vomiting in the streets. Why the anestheic when it comes to a gay hero who is also a pedophile, promoted to children? Is society already so mentally-ill with blind political-correctness that the most basic of reasoning powers has taken a vacation? That's why in my last post [read it] I said "The logical conclusion is..." A sane person can only come to one logical conclusion about the matter..

 

Perhaps the gay agenda is trying to warm everyone up to the idea of sexual rights for ALL. The 80's were a little too early to pull NAMBLA out of the hat, but now it has become time.

 

More likely the opposite is true. Go back in time, and we were all pretty much in the same bucked... Gay, pedophile, whatever... Not necessarily the same thing, but equally as stigmatized. We were "in it togeather" you could say, from one criminal with a mental disorder to another criminal. It's only in recent decades that the gay rights movement has been trying to distinguish itself. Nevertheless, this does not change the fact that historical figures in the gay rights movement had closer links. It does not change the fact that they were important figures in the gay right movement, but it also does not mean that they are the same thing and that recognizing those activists means you support everything about them. The history of gay rights has a very checkered past, there's no doubt about that.

 

I can guarantee you with 100% certainty that in a few decades the Liberals will be teaching our children in school about the oppressive discrimination against pedophiles in the past. We are so close-minded for requiring them to register as sex offenders and putting a life-long stigma on them. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation also, just like homosexuality and transexuals! Expect to see anti-discrimination employment laws, even when they work in daycare centers!

 

Perhaps the "gay rights movement" is synonymous with the NAMBLA movement. Gays' promoting to children a person known to them to have been a pedophile as "a hero figure" sort of says it all, doesn't it? There is only one way to interpret that. No, I'm sorry. There is only one way to interpret that, unless you are mentally ill.

 

Is a woman speeding through a school zone mentally ill? Does she want to hit a child and promote hitting children to other people? I'm sorry the world is not as black an white as you make it out to be.

 

I find it funny when you say 'perhaps' when every thread you have started has been trying to equate homosexuals with pedophiles. That is the reason you keep lying about Shilts saying that Milks ever 'sodomized' a minor.

 

Read the quotes from the OP. 16 is a minor in both New York and California where the sexual relationship between Harvey Milk and the minor boy took place. In California, sex with someone under the influence is also considered a non-consensual situation and a crime. In that same state, sex with someone who is mentally ill is also considered non-consensual, no matter what age; and a crime. So that's three crimes commited regularly on the 16 year old drug-addicted, mentally ill minor by Harvey Milk; also "gay hero" to school kids there now.

If that same woman goes out and lobbies her state legislature to promote a speed demon who has hit and killed several children as "the parent's safety-pick hero" to kids, then yes that woman is mentally ill and so is anyone else who stands at her shoulder promoting the same thing.

 

for the millions time, NOWHERE IN THE QUOTES YOU PROVIDED DOES IT SAY MILK SODOMIZED AN UNDERAGE BOY.

 

your problem is you keep making wild accusations that have zero basis in fact. You've been exposed over and over as having made up what people have said about milk. You do not fool anyone.

 

When living with a 16 year old boy is referred to as "domestic marraige", sex is a given. Read the quotes again. And while you do, don't forget that Harvey Milk at the same time he was "married" to 16 year old Jack McKinley was also speaking out publicly about gays having multiple sexual partners as "healthy" and the right thing to do. So since Milk wasn't abstinent, sane people conclude he was having sex with his "wife" the 16 year old drug addicted and mentally ill Jack McKinley. Insane people would try to pretend they didn't know the meaning of words in the english language.

Defense systems of deep denial are fascinating the contortions they expect others to entertain in denying the obvious..

 

No, i belive having the age of consent at 18 is insane, and he did nothing wrong by having a legitimate sexual relationship with a 16 year old.

 

like I said, NOWHERE in the quotes you posted does it say milk had sex with a minor. You have been caught lying. you should admit it, and move on. you really aren't fooling anyone.

 

Minor in new york and california that was nearly 17, and legal in most of the country. You have also not provided any evidence that Harvey Milk had sex with him sober, let alone having sex with him WHILE intoxicated. The purpose of those laws regarding having sex with intoxicated individuals has to do with date-rape drugs and otherwise taking advantage of someone who can't or would not consent while sober, while you're applying it to a relationship that went on for years.

And with regard to being "mentally ill", I highly doubt this term is meant in a broad sense... having any given mental illness doesn't make you unable to consent. The mental illness has to be debilitative to your ability to make informed judgments. Being OCD, for example, is a mental illness but even someone suffering from OCD can make informed judgments. Even people who have substance abuse issues can make informed judgments.

I'm not saying this is good or admirable behavior, but I do feel you're doing everything you can to blow it out of proportion.

Ah, but there's a problem with your analogy. You're proposing a scenario that is obviously a ludicrous contradiction... promoting someone who routinely kills children as a "parent's safety-pick hero". In your example, the person in question actually exhibits the exact opposite of what she's being promoted for. You would have to be mentally ill, or at least rather ignorant and dense to support that. There is no question of Harvey Milk's contribution to gay civil rights, so your analogy is false.

Let's think of it in terms of another analogy... let's say Harvey Milk cured cancer... a brilliant medical researcher, responsible for saving millions of lives. He is referenced in biology text books at high school, mentioned in the news and is generally considered a paradigm of a medical researcher. What say you to those who talk of his brilliance and contributions to medical science and humanity? Do you say that those people obviously support child molestation and pedophilia?

A woman may speed through a school zone, but that doesn't mean she wants to hit a child. A person may ignorantly promote Harvey Milk's contributions to gay civil rights without carefully considering his personal flaws and age-appropriateness, but that doesn't mean he supports those personal flaws. It just means that the person is A: Ignorant of those flaws B: Doesn't think the flaws are as bad as they are characterized as C: Thinks the flaws are serious, but that the individual should be judged according to their situation and era D: Understands the flaws but didn't consider the audience or E: Some combination of the above. You can be critical of the choice and audience, but the choice itself does not mean the person supports any and all of harvey's personal flaws.

 

Sex is not necessarily a given. For one, they were in a relationship for many years... "Domestic Marriage" is not necessarily a label that was applied until the later years of them being together. Perhaps Harvey was smart enough to wait until Jack was 17 or 18 before sodomy was involved.... perhaps sodomy was never involved, as there is a substantial portion of gay men who do not have anal sex. Perhaps Harvey was a "bottom" and Jack was a "Top", in which case Jack would be sodomizing Harvey, not the other way around. Perhaps through all this insanity, we have to ask why Harvey was never charged if the crimes against him were so serious.

 

Right. Sure. Uh-huh...

Harvey Milk, noted for promoting gay promiscuity and for having sex in public places, who was all about sexual freedom was living with a 16-year old minor he considered his spouse and who he openly called "his lover" and yet you want us to believe he wasn't BF-ing the kid?

Sure. Got any oceanfront property in AZ to sell me?