Should Harvey Milk Have Been A Registered Sex-Offender?

I will point out once again, that you have never once expressed any concern about the majority of victims of pedophiles- which are girls. You appear only interested in the victims if they are boys.

You attempt to paint all homosexuals as pedophiles, while ignoring that the vast majority of child sex crimes are committed by men against girls.

You have started multiple threads, all with this exact same message.

Why do you not care about girls?

 

That is because Harvey Milk is the one who is being promoted, by gays, to schoolkids in California as "cool". If you can think of other known and unapologetic pedophiles who are being promoted by gays or heteros to children, let me know. I promise I won't just focus on Harvey Milk if there are others.

So far I can't think of another group promoting any pedophile, gay or hetero, to children in schools as "hero". That is the relevent point to this topic. Try to salvage your credibility by no longer pretending to not understand that gays across the board are promoting a pedophile to children to emulate.

 

I will point out once again, that you have never once expressed any concern about the majority of victims of pedophiles- which are girls. You appear only interested in the victims if they are boys. You attempt to paint all homosexuals as pedophiles, while ignoring that the vast majority of child sex crimes are committed by men against girls.

 

what male pedophiles that molested little girls are being championed by teaching about how great they were to school kids???

 

I have.

he wasn't a pedophile.

 

na, just an older man who didnt want men his own age, instead a freak who preyed on vulnerable lil teen boys.

 

You see, if SFJeff can successfully turn this into "just another hater thread about gays", he's hoping he can train the attention away from the fact that gay groups nationwide are promoting a known pedophile to children. He's working hard on the old "pity poor gays" theme that comes up anytime they face insurmountable obstacles. Seems to always work so he's reverting to it kinda kneejerk here..


He's hoping we'll get lost on a tangent. He's praying for the strawman to save the day. But the strawman burned up long ago and all that is left are the ashes of this particular leg of the gay agenda, scattering in the four winds.

The cat is out of the bag and kitty won't go back in.

What does it say when the gay movement knowingly chooses a pedophile to head up "all things gay" as "their ambassador to children". What does it say when they want a holiday dedicated to him, to be celebrated in schools..?

What does it say?...

 

You're talking about a matter of law. The person I responded to asked whether something should be considered pedophilia, which is a clinical term. If you want to find me a law that makes a distinction using the term pedophilia, knock yourself out. As far as I'm concerned, that wasn't what was asked, and not what I responded to.

No, it is not moot, and you're confusing terms. Pubescence is the onset of puberty. It is a beginning point, not something that goes on for years and years. Pre-pubescence is the period before the onset of puberty. Adolescence is the period after the onset of puberty. Pedophilia focuses on pre-pubescent children - those who have not yet entered adolescence. There is nothing "moot" about that.

I've already acknowledged his flaws. Continuing to harp on them after the fact gains you nothing.

Which isn't the definition of pedophilia, which is what I responded to. Not my fault if people confuse things by using the wrong terms.

Shall we have a similar thread then to discuss the slave owners that are other people's chosen heroes? The point here is not to compare Milk to Washington or Jefferson, but to illustrate that actions of a heroic nature don't obligate us to ignore a persons other considerable flaws. I don't put much stock in the kind of hero worship that so many others engage in.

The argument that advocates of equality have chosen Milk as their hero and must therefore have a sinister agenda that includes sex with children and/or the promotion thereof is nothing more than screechy, extreme propaganda.

Here I will remind you that Milk was never convicted of a sex crime with a minor. I'm not aware that he was ever even prosecuted for such. So you're practicing a very purposeful distortion of the facts with your wording. You can certainly argue that his actions might have merited prosecution and conviction of sex crimes with minors, but since that prosecution and conviction didn't take place, it's a leap to say "his crimes were sex crimes with minors" - he wasn't convicted of any such crimes. You're setting yourself up as his personal judge and jury.

Of course, the relevant question is whether there is educational value in teaching about the achievements or character flaws of a person. There may be value in age-appropriate teaching that addresses both. Otherwise, I would say emphasize the positive things to inspire people to follow that example - not as indoctrination to emulate all of the behavior of that person.

And that's really the thrust of your message, isn't it - the accusation that this is a sinister plot to indoctrinate children and "turn them gay". It marks your opinion as extreme and divorced from reality.

If you misconstrued it to be such a comparison, that's your error, and not the point I was making.

I'm not, but thanks for confirming the obvious - that you aim here is to malign gay people.

You act like we all met somewhere and held a vote to elect him, with the goal that he should be the gay community's "ambassador to children". This just betrays your very poor understanding of gay socialization and gay politics.

This isn't really about Milk, though. It's about the fact that you can't stand the idea of gay people overcoming the considerable barriers that people like you have erected to keep us marginalized. You hate Milk not because you perceive him to be a child molester, but because he's a symbol of gay people achieving some status in society and acknowledgment of our rights.

All your ranting could be summed up in four words: "I hate gay people". To which the appropriate response is, "Why should we care what you think?"

Don't hold your breath.

Just continuing to illustrate how much you hate gay people.

Yes, we understand that many people are motivated by political aspirations and bigotry. This isn't news.

You cannot cram these words into my mouth, no matter how large the crowbar you wield in the effort to do so.

I do not consider Milk the "epitome gay". I've never said any such thing. I also very clearly stated that I don't consider him to be my hero. I did not dub him the "Mayor of Castro".

Milk is a controversial figure, in no small part because of his personal flaws. My statement was about Milk. The giant leaps you took to make it sound like I've made some huge admission - that being gay should be viewed as controversial - are a product of your own mental gymnastics, not anything logically implied by my actual statements.

I do not seek nor wish to be worshiped.

Everyone's actions have consequences - yours included. But whatever "consequences" your wild imagination concocts from the existence and conduct of gay people, this has nothing to do with anything I said, and frankly looks very desperate on your part.

I rather doubt anyone expects you to disagree with your own tortured distortions.

Spare us - you aren't fooling anyone with your phony calls for compassion. Your conduct in this forum illustrates all too clearly to me that you possess none.

 

Maybe ask someone who was actually involved in that. Here you illustrate the stock and trade of anti-gay propagandists - trying to paint gay people as if we were a group of conspirators who think, speak and act with one mind and hold a singular, unified opinion. We don't.

Sounds like you're misinterpreting the law behind this, not that I'm personally persuaded that it was well written, either.

As for the rest of the repetitious "blah blah blah, rant rant rant, demonize demonize demonize"...

Whatever. Seriously not worth the effort.

 

Do not ever troll me again by referring to me in the feminine gender. You've been told repeatedly that I'm a man, and my profile indicates as much. No excuses.

 

Sounds like someone is grumpy for being caught calling Harvey Milk [and by extension all the organized gay groups who know all about him and consider him their ambassador to the straight culture], "controversial", "[not to be] worshipped" and "[consequential]"..

And I'll repeat here that I agree with you. He is controversial, he shouldn't be venerated and there are consequences attached to him as there would be with anyone knowing his popular history and "penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems", who promotes him...

His "flaws" are child-sex predation. Kind of incompatible then with teaching him to kids in school as "the quintessential gay hero", don't you think? Was that a mistake on behalf of all these gay groups promoting him? Didn't any of them read the book The Mayor of Castro Street, or see the movie "Milk"? [I'm giving you and the gays promoting Harvey Milk a chance to gracefully bow out of promoting him here].

Did someone in the fold get mad at you for saying how you really feel about Harvey Milk?

 

"The argument that advocates of equality have chosen Milk as their hero and must therefore have a sinister agenda that includes sex with children and/or the promotion thereof is nothing more than screechy, extreme propaganda."

Exactly Pereguine.

As I have said before, once again the OP is merely using Milk as an excuse to promote his own anti-homosexual agenda to equate homosexuality to pedophilia.

And I will point out once again- that the OP has never once posted with concern about the vast majority of child sex abuse victims- which are girls abused by men. He is only concerned about equating boys abused by men with homosexuality.

 

Even if everything you two are alleging is true, it still doesn't erase the very important fact that gay groups across the board:

1. Know that Harvey Milk was sodomizing a vulnerable drug-addicted 16 year old.

and

2. Promote him to children as their "gay hero".

Now I could call that to people's attention, Mother Theresa could call that to people's attention, Governor Christie could call that to people's attention, Nancy Pelosi could call that to people's attention, Rush Limbaugh could call that to people's attention, Freddie Mercury could call that to people's attention, Charles Manson could call that to people's attention...

..and none of the personalities I just mentioned would in any way change the raw and basic facts: Gays are promoting a known pedophile to children in California schools right now as we sit here dicussing this.

 

You obviously are not taking into account, the power of celebrity status and/or the wealth status card in situations such as this. The odds are in their favor, to beat “silly” charges like these. So what the politician had sex with an underage minor, it's not like he was a construction worker or a homeless guy? Those people are and should be held to a different set of standards than the common dwellers of the world. The manner in which Errol Flynn or Michael Jackson eluded prosecution for their dastardly deeds should emphasize the separation of responsibility when it comes to the elite and the peasants.
　
　
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/6929318/ns/today-today_news/t/here-we-go-again/
　
　
　
Even if he would have been charged and or convicted, his political ties would have seen to it he would have been properly pardoned to assure that the actual magnitude of such criminal behavior wouldn't have been brought to the forefront by guilt by association, the same way Nixon was pardoned to assure others involved wouldn't be found guilty by association and sacrificed in the crossfire at getting to the truth of the matter.
　
　
Largely I think that these acts of depravity go on much more than anybody would actually like to admit, but certain members of society are usually held to a different standard, which not only allows for justice to be deflected, but encourages more of the same with those who believe they are above the law, knowing that they can/will under most circumstances be able to use their status to get out of being held responsible.

 

And every word of that does not apply to the conversation nor change a thing of the import of ....*drum roll*...

Gays knowingly choosing a man who openly sodomized [and documented too for crissakes] a 16 year old minor under the influence of drugs...that he sought out these types of human beings in misery in order to futher exploit their demise, use them for anal sex and then discard them like kleenex when he was done.

THIS is the guy gays have chosen to promote to kids as "gay hero".

It's not that some people get away with it and others don't. It's that gays are promoting him knowing what he did to minors!!! That is SAYING SOMETHING ABOUT GAYS.

Yes, it is.. and I'm not the one saying it, it is they themselves screaming it from the hilltops, by their very actions shouting it to the world 'WE CONDONE SEX CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN"! What other message can be gleaned from it? I don't care if Harvey Milk spoke to god or charmed the venom out of snakes, if he was sodomizing drug-addicted teens HE BELONGED/BELONGS [-if he were alive today] BEHIND BARS AND ON THE SEX-OFFENDER'S REGISTRY, NOT IN THE HISTORY BOOKS OF "GAY HEROS" IN CA SCHOOLS.

 

It's a pity this F-ing (F for Fig) Queer Harvey Milk wasn't deflowered by an orangutang.

 

No, I'm disgusted by your continual effort to twist my statements into something they aren't, and to extend them far beyond anything I actually said. Also, your insistence on repeatedly referring to me as a female when you've been told repeatedly that I'm a man.

I stand by my statement that Milk is a controversial figure. I stand by my statement that I don't think he's someone to be worshiped.

With regard to [consequential], what I said was that I didn't think his existence was inconsequential, and I suppose to some extent it's my fault for not being more specific about what I meant by that, leaving the door wide open for you to swoop in with your agenda and reinterpret it for your own propaganda.

When I said that I didn't think Milk's existence was inconsequential, I had in mind his political legacy, and specifically his role in the modern gay rights movement. It wasn't about the crap that you're trying to turn it into - not in the least.

No, what you agree with is your own reinterpretation of my statements to mean whatever you want them to.

Not going to address the repetitious blah blah blah that has already been dealt with.

No, no one in the "fold' has said anything to me about my statements on Milk.

Once again we see the conspiracy theory of anti-gay propagandists who think we all have a sinister agenda to indoctrinate and molest their children, supposedly to manufacture more gay people. Pure bigotry.

 

You should be cheering then.

He was murdered by a homophobe.

 

I hope it was a slow death.

 

Then the poll should have been;
　
　
Should the gay child arse f(*)(*)(*)er known as Milk, be respected as a hero by the other gay arse f(*)(*)(*)ers, or be in a place of honor in California history books?
Probably not, but he was never convicted of any crime, not to mention there are probably some statute of limitations laws that are in effect here, and unfortunately in this country you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
　
　
In any case the gay community is just like any other political extremist movement and anything/anybody that agitates the people who disagree with them the more they are going to invoke the item/their name, just to p(*)(*)(*) them off. That’s basically all this gays in the history books nonsense is, to p(*)(*)(*) people like you off. Seems to be working.

 

OK it's my bad for mis-naming the thread title. It should have been "Would Harvey Milk be eligible for the sex-offender's registry if he was alive today".

The answer is yes. A 33-year old sodomizing a drug-addicted 16 year old is clearly, plainly and inarguably against the laws in CA and possibly in all the states Harvey Milk did this to Jack McKinley in. It's documented and there's a film out about it. Milk himself did not hide the crimes and was quite open about them.

So since he would be eligible today, a conviction isn't necessary to apply the rest of the question:

"Is it appropriate to take a man openly disobedient of child-sex laws like Milk and teach children to emulate him as "representative of the epitome of the gay community."

If he is the epitome representative of the gay community, then perhaps it is appropriate in the truthful sense. But to children? Do they not also enjoy priveleges and protections?

 

It is a very unfortunate choice of gays to use Harvey Milk as their cultural spokesman.

And revealing too.

 

Can't prove eligibility for registration as a sex offender without a conviction, but nice try.

Without an example from the actual curriculum that shows us precisely what children are being taught about Milk and how that material is presented, your assertion amounts to making (*)(*)(*)(*) up and holds no weight.

 

Scroll back a few pages Perriquin. You'll find a listing of just a drop in the bucket of organized gay groups promoting Milk to California school kids.

But here we are again since playing dumb is your only hope to train the eye away from the horrible and revealing choice of gays of a pedophile to head-up their PR campaign to society at large, and even children..

The Facts:

The testimonial to Milk's life "The Mayor of Castro Street" tells that Harvey Milk "had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems". [page 180] Harvey Milk at 33 years of age was sodomizing 16-year old drug-addicted Jack McKinley in New York and California and calling it "gay love".

Yes, yes Perriquin, I'm "making it all up".. It's all just "crap I'm making up"..

 

Why am I not surprised? Maybe you can start a movement to commemurate his murderer? Maybe you can promote a "Death to Homosexuals" day in Dan White's honor.