Should Harvey Milk Have Been A Registered Sex-Offender?

NAMBLA will march again in Bay Area Gay Parades (With Honor)

 

Does "Old Time Religion" attract the same sort of people in the Muslim World as here?

 

There's no math to do until you show me where "gays" in California (who have no official unifying representative that I am aware of) are choosing, backing, etc, Harvey Milk as "their head ambassador". I've seen no evidence of this.

 

Don't pedophiles prey on pre-pubescent kids? I think that's what the term refers to... Anyways, he's innocent until proven guilty. If he had been tried in a court of law and found guilty then yeah he should've been registered a sex-offender. Since that never happened I'm not sure why anyone should care. Edgar Allen Poe married his 13 year old cousin and learning about him is mandatory in tons of schools (it was legal at the time, but at least it can actually be proven). No one cares about that either.

 

Oh, you mean where did I get the idea that gays are promoting Harvey Milk? You mean, like there's no evidence of this?

Yes, like a "legacy" of sodomized, date-raped and suicidal youth. From the OP and the book The Mayor of Castro Street:

More..

Well, they can't claim ignorane of the tales of blatant felonious child-sodomizing in The Mayor of Castro Street, in that last bit, now can they?...lol..

I think that pretty much covers the entire length of the State, and the direct-promotion and knowledge of Harvey Milk, who he was and ALL of who he was. But just in case you needed a specific reference to gays promoting a public-pedophile to children, I'll leave you with this last excerpt:

Peophiles almost always combined "food and fun" while they're engaged in the grooming process of future potential victims...

 

And if Harvey Milk's alleged victim was a girl, you would never have started this thread.

This is just another of your attempts to link homosexuality to pedophilia and your blatant disregard for the vast majority of pedophilia victims who are girls

 

There are many similarities, if nothing else.

 

You're right SFJeff. I never would've started this thread if a male had molested girls and was being held out as the GAY ambassador to children. That is because a gay man molesting little girls wouldn't be held out as a "gay hero" to children.

Your gang made the first move: holding out a serial child-sodomizer, date-raper as your "ambassador to children".

I'm merely reporting on it.

 

'my gang'? I don't rumble with gangs...

And if Harvey Milk's alleged victim was a girl, you would never have started this thread.

This is just another of your attempts to link homosexuality to pedophilia and your blatant disregard for the vast majority of pedophilia victims who are girls

 

Actually the CDC and Mayo Clinic have linked homosexuality to pedophilia. I just pointed that out to you. Please give credit where it's due.

 

I agree I think representing Milk as a pedophile is actually being done to force an agenda against gays.

16 would have been perfectly legal at the time in many US states.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/primary-sources/24

Should he have been tried and convicted of the crime then, yes, he should have been listed as a sex offender if that is the law of the state.

That said not all sex offenders are pedophiles: is a 17 year old who has sex with a 16 year old partner a "pedophile"?

And not all pedophiles (people genuinely attracted to pre-pubescent children) are sex offenders if they don't act on their attractions.

I think it's fair to say if the allegations made in this thread are true, then Milk could be classed as a "predatory" homosexual. That said there are plenty of males (probably a whole lot more in fact) that seek out females of "jailbait" age. Just look at the tons of supposedly "almost legal" heterosexual porn out there. As another poster has pointed out the OP never takes any time to use things like this to pursue a connection between heterosexuality and pedophilia so there's obviously a, not very thinly, disguised agenda at work here.

 

And I just "linked" heterosexuality to pedophilia in my previous post, doesn't mean the link has any gravity or meaning unless its examined in the true context in which its described.

Continually pointing out a lie doesn't make it the truth.

http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-l...rop-8-unconstitutional-14.html#post1060876024

"this finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children"

 

Pro Masculine (Gay) Minor attracted (NAMBLA) practioners of an Alternative Lifestyle are allies of the GLBT Rainbow flag groups

 

Except that it was a felony at the time and remains so today in the State of California where the crime occured, among other states between there and New York.

Sodomizing a minor is either a felony or it isn't. Just because a criminal got away with a crime by being well-placed poltically...a crime he even admitted to and was documented in a book and a movie spinoff... doesn't make it any iota less than the felony it was/is today.

Holding that person out to children as an ambassador of a poltical movement, especially one revolving around sexual behaviors, is aiding and abetting the grooming process of pedophilia. Whether or not the pedophile is still alive and practicing. Children can both get ahold of the book and the movie, watch it or read it and then experience the re-affirmation of that criminal's "heroic stance" in the eyes of those teaching them to emulate him.

It's that crucial connection children will make in their minds: "oh, it's OK for an adult man to stick his penis in my butt. We learned in class that that guy Harvey Milk [you know, the one we got the book about and read that he was having anal sex with a 16 year old boy], is a "hero".

How then will you teach them to avoid strangers who want to stick their penis in their butt?

Riddle me that..

 

No, I don't want you to give examples of the Harvey Milk foundation promoting Harvey Milk, which is what you did. So what? That's their mission. There's no evidence they are representative of the gay community at large.

What I want you to do is prove this statement right here, with specificity:

Again, I don't see gays at large promoting any official curriculum in schools, and none of the supposed evidence you linked to provides that.

The link to the GSA's promotion is the most pointless one of all, because a GSA is a student organization, in other words, it's made up of kids. It has no influence or control over curriculum. The activities you mention are student groups doing cleverly-named fundraisers.

 

Selective comprehension: "Should he have been tried and convicted of the crime then, yes, he should have been listed as a sex offender if that is the law of the state."

I just pointed out that that depends on where it happens and the time it happened.

California (eighteen) yes.
Connecticut (16) no.
Georgia (14) no.

So yes you are right, partially, it's just that different states classified a "minor" as a different thing which is why the same act with the same person would be a felony in some places and not in others.

You continue to speculate and I'll continue to point out facts.

He wasn't convicted of this, all you have is allegations. If at the time those allegations had been substantiated and he had been tried and convicted of the crime, you would have every right to go on record as to his "felony".

You continue to speculate and I'll continue to point out facts.

He is merely being represented for the political work he did in the field of gay rights. No one is forcing anybody to see him as a "hero" in any other field or endeavor. Anybody can read and discover about other aspects of his life and decide whether or not those are characteristics they should choose to emulate.

You continue to speculate and I'll continue to point out facts.

I don't think the term "pedophile" is correct. Clinically he might be described as a "****phile" and yes a ****phile can be classed as a sexual offender in some places and not in others depending on the age of consent.

As you can see from this age of consent chart, http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/primary-sources/24 back in the 1880s ****philia was practically mandatory! (probably because we had shorter life-spans back then and beyond)

He was never tried and convicted of this "crime". Come to think of it, in many states homosexuality was completely illegal regardless of age. Should we not allow kids to learn anything about the achievements of any person who might have been homosexual back then lest they: "experience the re-affirmation of that criminal's "heroic stance"?

Well in the mind of a 16 year old gay Californian the qualifier would be: "it's not OK now but in two years time it will be".

Well just tell them that it's illegal for strangers to stick their penises in their butts until they reach the age of 18 and say it's OK for them to do that.

Just did!

 

I have a hard time believe a 16 year old can't consent. 16 is the age of consent in most states, and honestly, they aren't a ton different than your average young adult. This guy would have slept with Milk whether he was 16 or 18.

Milk is probably a creep, but I don't think it should be criminal.

 

So your OK with a 46 year old guy wanting to Marry your 16 year old Son or Nephew

 

It's not about whether "he's OK" it's about whether or not they have that right in law. In some places they do and that son or nephew could just as soon be daughter or niece.

There's a point where, however much you might despise your offspring's choice of partner, the law says it's no longer up to you.

 

Believe it, the law says he's not allowed to consent. I don't know if Milk was a creep or not, but if he did this he did commit a criminal act.

That being said, the guy is dead. Trying to put him on trial posthumously doesn't really change anything else he did. It's like those guys that want to remove Thomas Jefferson from the history books cause he had sex with his slaves or think Bill Clinton's fiscal policy should be looked at differently because he sodomized an intern.

 

If the Relationship Developed to Marrage over the course of two years

 

There would be absolutely zip you could do about it. You could tell them of your disapproval, say you never wanted to see either of them ever again but if it's legal in your state you can't stop them marrying, no.

 

"innocent until proven guilty"

Which is largly a forgotten ideal in the current world of internet forums like this. 24 hour news, paparazzi, etc etc..Where celebs and anyone under the media spotlight are put on trial in the public domain.

 

If my son or nephew was dumb enough to do it at 16, he'd be dumb enough to do it at 18.

 

Eating skittles can be criminal if the law says it. Weed hurts no one, and its against the law. We have a bunch of laws that don't make sense. I was 16 seven years ago, and besides being more informed about certain things, I'm not much different....my biggest changes physically, mentally, and and personality wise happened from 14 to 15, and it was pretty much that way for most of my friends.