Should Harvey Milk Have Been A Registered Sex-Offender?

Believe what you like... just don't hold your belief up as fact. In America, a crime requires proof before we administer punishment.​

 

The issue is the time-sensitive nature of it. Jack was not 16 years old for the entire time they knew eachother. Your knowledge of what went on during their entire relationship is limited, let alone what happened during the small time frame where he was 16. If the crimes were so incredibly serious, why wasn't he prosecuted, or even arrested?

 

"sex is a given"

It is a given to those who go looking for confirmation of there bias. But none of the parties ever said they had sex- not Shilts, not Milk, not McKinley. Just you. You assume they had sex- because it furthers the story you are promoting.

Did they have sex? I doubt we will ever know- since none of them ever appear to have commented on whether they did or did not. To claim that that they did have sex is a claim you cannot know- you just assume.

And based upon your assumption, you wish to try and convict Milks in absentia.

If you weren't so consistantly dishonest in your claims, your argument might appear more than just an anti-homosexual rant.

 

You still don't get it. You are assuming that he was having sex with the kid. You project your assumptions and claim them as fact. But they are not- they are your assumptions. Its like claiming that a prostitute can't have been raped because he sells himself for sex. Assumptions based upon disapproval of life style.

And frankly, the fact that you assume that he was having anal intercourse with him exposes both your bias and your ignorance- not all homosexuals have anal intercourse or even want to have it.

 

Silly seems to prefer justice by hyperbole and lynch mob.

 

A little comment here. The existence and very popular explicit twink material out there does lead one to believe there is a problem with underage issues in the community.

 

Don't forget too that the quotes from the book as indicated in my signature and elsewhere in this thread, depict, in context, that Harvey Milk stood for serial-sodomizing vulnerable teen boys on drugs, one after the other. He discarded them each successively as they aged past his tweak-preference...or "twink" preference. Just like Jerry Sandusky except that Sandusky didn't express a preference that they be on drugs too as he raped them. Bear in mind that if you are in your 30s and coerce a minor 16 year old street "waif" boy on drugs to let you sodomize him, it is in fact rape.

Harvey Milk as a matter of law in California "embodies the GLBT movement across the nation and the world". It's actually written just like that. And none of them have stood up to dethrone him publicly.

 

"Teen" is the most popular porn genre among heterosexuals. So this is not specific to homosexual community.

 

Milk was a sick and twisted deviant.

 

Examples of pedophilia can be found in both the hetero and homosexual populations. They are though disproportionately heavy on the homosexual side given the overall numbers of gays in the total population [about 1/3 of ALL molestations are by homosexuals, where they make up total only some 5-10% of the entire population]. Heterosexuals have not, to my knowledge, chosen a known pedophile as "representative of their sexuality" on a political scale. Homosexuals have. And when it's pointed out, instead of saying "oops, we made a mistake" and correcting the problem, they defend their choice and stand by him.

Then they freak out when people point out that this is pedophilia since anyone who sympathizes with or defends a known pedophile's "sexual freedoms" is by definition, tending towards pedophilia themselves, or at least OK with it. Like I said, it would be like the Boy Scouts of America choosing Jerry Sandusky as their "youth outreach" icon and then freaking out why people might have a problem with that.

Marriage is an institution created for children. Pedophile-sympathizers/defenders have no place in that institution therefore.

 

The quotes from book show that this claim is just your repeated lie.

- - - Updated - - -

Well we celebrate many 'deviants'- Thomas Jefferson- who likely raped his slave, Elvish Presley who started 'dating' Priscilla when she was 14 years old.

We don't celebrate 'deviancy'- a term usually used by those who don't approve of what they say- we celebrate what they accomplished.

 

The majority of victims of childhood sexual abuse- by a large proportion- are girls abused by men.

Notice that you don't make one mention of the majority of pedophilia cases or victims.

Not one mention of them.

Not one.

Its like the majority of victims of pedophilia don't exist to homophobes.

 

but none of those people you just mentioned stood for politically alternative sexuality. Their celebrated accomplishments were not buggering boys, like what was all Harvey Milk stood for. Trying to burn another page off the thread Jeff?....lol... You do realize how your playing dumb looks overall for your cause, right?

 

The vast majority of pedophiles are men. The majority of their victims are girls.

 

Yet at 5-10% of the population, gays make up about 1/3 of ALL molestations. You think people aren't able to do simple math, right Jeff?

 

You may celebrate the deviants, I do not.

 

What is my 'cause' Silhouette?

Since I continually expose your lies and promote the truth, I am fairly comfortable with how I look here.

"were not buggering boys, like what was all Harvey Milk stood for."

Lets remind everyone about your lies:

"were not buggering boys"- this is entirely your claim- unsupported by any evidence anywhere.

"like what was all Harvey Milk stood for."- just another lie:
http://gsanetwork.org/hmd

Harvey Milk Day is a day to educate Californians about an extraordinary leader whose courageous work to end discrimination against the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community in the 1970s set the stage for many of the civil rights advances we see today.

http://milkfoundation.org/harvey-in-schools/text-of-californias-annual-harvey-milk-day-legislation/

v) Harvey Milk’s legacy as a civil rights leader is still felt today. He was named one of TIME Magazine’s most influential people of the 20th century.

I think the only ones that are obsessed with the idea that Milk 'stood for buggering boys' are the homophobes promoting their anti-gay Agenda. Everyone else knows that Milk stood for Civil Rights for everyone.

- - - Updated - - -

Really? How do you know that Reagan wasn't a deviant- or that Washington wasn't?

I celebrate people for their accomplishments- not for what some person who thinks of themselves as some moral authority says that they are.

 

90% or more of all molestations are done by men.
2/3 or more of all molestations are done to girls by men.

And all you ever talk about is your claim that Harvey Milk had sex with a 16 year old boy.

I have yet to see you ever express any interest in the vast majority of child sex abuse victims. If it doesn't have to do with a man molesting a boy you don't care.

As far as I know- Gays make up zero percentage of all molestations. You are not only unable to understand math, you are unable to understand Englisht terms.

http://www.victimsofcrime.org/news-...ld-sexual-abuse/child-sexual-abuse-statistics
•1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys is a victim of child sexual abuse;
•Self-report studies show that 20% of adult females and 5-10% of adult males recall a childhood sexual assault or sexual abuse incident;
•During a one-year period in the U.S., 16% of youth ages 14 to 17 had been sexually victimized;
•Over the course of their lifetime, 28% of U.S. youth ages 14 to 17 had been sexually victimized;
•Children are most vulnerable to CSA between the ages of 7 and 13

http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/news/Niiler-SixMisconceptionsAboutPedophiles.pdf
6 Myths
• Gay men are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexual men.
While that myth was proved wrong by the American Psychological Association, the American
Academy of Pediatrics and other professional medical groups, it persists. The state of Florida
cited this myth in banning gay adoptions, until the law was stricken down by a federal court in
2010.

http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/news/Psychology Today-Three Critical Lessons.pdf

Somehow we tend to think of sex offenders as creepy strangers who are unknown to their victims. This situation is very rare but typically makes a great deal of press when it occurs. The most likely person to sexually violate a minor child is a family member such as a step-father, uncle, or often an older brother or cousin. After that, teachers, sport coaches, choir directors, clergy, scout leaders, camp counselors, and others who are entrusted with the care and supervision of youth may be offenders. This is very important to remember. Most sex offenders are as close as the child's own home, school, and practice field.

http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/factsheet/pdf/CSA-FS20.pdf
Gender. It is well known that many more girls than boys are the victims of sexual abuse. This
statistic is confirmed regardless of the information that is used. Across different types of
research—all reliable studies conclude that girls experience more sexual abuse than do boys.
Studies have found that the percent of victims who are female range from 78% to 89%

Gender
The perpetrators of sexual abuse are overwhelmingly male. Studies using the law
enforcement as well as victim self-report data found that more than 90% of the perpetrators of
sexual offenses against minors were male[15, 16].

Most child abuse is by men, and most of their victims are girls.

Yet you want people to associate Gay=Pedophile- because that suites your homophobic agenda.

 

Meanwhile at the Mayo Clinic...

 

No...not from the Mayo Clinic.

I have tried to explain this to you before. This is a report by Dr. Richards, which was published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings- it is not endorsed or validated by the Mayo Clinic in any fashion. The report itself stands- just there is no reason to lie and say that this was the result of any research done by or for the Mayo Clinic.

But since you refer to this article- and I assume you believe it is correct- lets go with the actual article- rather than quote mining

You own quote specifically says this:
[B]This finding does not imply that homosexuals
are more likely to molest children,[/B][/B]

And the article refutes your definition of pedophilia:

By diagnostic criteria of the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
Fourth Edition, a pedophile is an individual who fantasizes
about, is sexually aroused by, or experiences sexual urges
toward prepubescent children (generally <13 years) for a
period of at least 6 months.

Technically, individuals who engage in sexual activities
with pubescent teenagers under the legal age of consent
(ages 13-16 years) are known as hebophiles (attracted to
females) or ephebophiles (attracted to males).

In general, most individuals who engage in pedophilia
or paraphilias are male.

Females were the most
commonly abused, with the percentage of abused females
increasing with age.

According to your own source- you are just wrong to call Harvey Milk a pedophile- regardless of whether he had sex with a 16 year old or not.

Pretty much every time you cite something it disproves what you claim Harvey Milk is or does.

According to the article- Harvey Milk is not a pedophile.
And most child sex abuse victims are girls.
And it doesn't imply that homosexual's are more likely to abuse- as a matter of fact the article specifically refutes what you are claiming.

As usual.

 

With respect, it's you that're relying on people being mathematically inept. It's a logical fallacy you assume that the 5-10% you quote are identical in etiology and risk. You've arbitrarily grouped together men who sleep with other adult men with men who sleep with pre-pubescent boys, but you have no evidence that men who sleep with other adult men are any more likely to ALSO be men who sleep with pre-pubescent boys. But by arbitrarily grouping them together under the uniform label "gay" or "homosexual", you can make the statistic look really bad.

There's a reason people say that there are lies, (*)(*)(*)(*) lies and statistics. Your example perfectly exemplifies the way you can abuse statistics to make them lie. Props to you, but your tactics should only be convincing to idiots... you can have em.

 

Here, for those who still don't get it, here's a simple parallel example that highlights the fallacy Silhouette is using.

At 50% of the population, men make up about 95% of ALL molestations. Therefore ALL men are dangerous and deserve our contempt and suspicion. Simple math, right? Wrong, and Silhouette knows it... in fact, he relies on it. Although technically correct as an average, it would be highly irresponsable to take that statistic and simply assume that ALL men have EQUAL likelihood to be a child molester. And I'll bet Silhouette agrees with this completely, because he wishes to push forward that it's the subcategory of GAY men that are more likely to molest.


But just as you can't say that ALL men have an equal chance to molest, you have no reason to believe that all GAY men have the same chance to molest. Just as you can sub-categorize "men" into more specific groups, you can subcategorize "gay men" into more specific groups... i.e. the non-mutually exclusive categories of A. men who sleep with other men and B. men who molest with pre-pubescent boys. It is category B that is responsible for 1/3 of all molestations. Certainly some men who sleep with other men also molest boys (the categories are not mutually exclusive), but no reason is given that ALL gay men have an equal chance to molest. In fact, any study on gay men has demonstrated them to be no more likely to be erroused by child pornography than straight men. Similarly, the study of victims of molestation do not show a significant rate of molesters who also sleep with adult men... i.e. almost all child molesters are involved in heterosexual relationships with other adults, whether or not their child victims are male or female.

These statistics are just a smoke screen Silhouette is trying to use to demonize men who sleep with other men without a cause. Silhouette's trying to have it both ways, sub-categorizing "men" into the smaller group he wants to demonize, but being unwilling to recognize the possibility of any further subcategorization of "gay men".

 

He shouldn't have been registered because he wasn't charged or convicted.
You don't register a person as a sex offender based on hearsay.