Should Harvey Milk Have Been A Registered Sex-Offender?

Yup, and there are people who drive drunk and no one get's hurt. Doesn't mean driving drunk shouldn't be prohibited and doesn't mean you shouldn't get a ticket if you do so and get caught. Disagreeing with a law might be a reason to try and change it, but does not grant someone exemption from it.

 

So if the 46 yEAR OLD Was a Republican Politician the Left would not demand he resign for having a Relationship with a Then 14 year old boy ?

 

Actuially you could ,it's 16 (With Parental Consent)

 

Pretty sure they would. Well... unless he was dead. Folks know Harvey Milk is dead right?

 

It's already 16 in like half the states. And 17 in most others. There are only a handful of states where it's 18, so your example of drunk driving, where it's illegal everywhere, is a little faulty.

 

Firstly you originally said 16 (not 14) which is legal in many states and countries and I can't see any circumstances where anybody should be forced to resign for engaging in a legal act.

I can however see perfect justification in a politician being urged to resign if they are actively engaging in something while trying to pass legislation telling everyone else that they can't engage in the exact same thing.

This isn't a personal reaction, I'm just pointing out what the law says as of now.

 

Your original post said this:

Your next post said this:

Well, after "the course of two years", your 16 year old is going to be an 18 year old so, nope, there's nothing you could do about it. I was right all along.

 

So drunk driving isn't legal in Montana? Huh... well, live and learn. They sure seem to act like it is... Anyway, no it's not a faulty example. The example illustrated that just because something might not have lead to a bad end in your particular experience doesn't mean it's not good to have the prohibition or that it shouldn't be enforced. Laws against drunk driving are a good example of that. Even if the legal limit of blood alcohol hadn't varied over the years and by state more widely than the legal age of marriage it still effectively illustrates the point.

 

Drunk driving is illegal in every state, whereas marriage, and the age of consent in general is different depending on the state, that's why I said it was a faulty example.

 

Yes he should be registered as a sex offender, obviously.

 

If it was a 46 year old Republican or Democrat having a sexual relationship with any 14 year old girl or boy, I would demand that they resign.

And if I knew about it I would demand prosecution.

But I wouldn't convict them without a trial, nor would I put them on a sex offenders list without a trial.

 

This isn't whether or not he was convicted, it's whether or not people here believe he should be post-humously "convicted" and eligible for the sex-offender's registry.

California's sex-offender registry requirements were made retroactive to the 1940s. Now just because Harvey Milk sodomized a 16 year old and got away with it, the crime is no less a crime.

Gays have chosen him as their ambassador to children. The pertinent facts are these:

1. He sodomized a minor child. That he was in his 30s when the child was under 18 makes it a FELONY. It is STILL DESCRIBED THIS WAY on the CA penal code books.

2. There is a popular book published about this FELONY and other sexual crimes against children that Milk is guilty of, including date-rape, since witnesses observed that he "always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems." (page 180)".

3. There is a pop-culture movie about said crimes as well.

Therefore, the same children who are being taught that Harvey Milk is a "gay hero" in school [tying sexual behavior to accomplishments is the subject of this thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...s-sue-schools-failure-protect-la-sb-48-a.html ] can access via pop culture books and film, the fact that Harvey Milk was also an unconvicted felonious child-sodomizer, date-raper.

So there's a real and tangible problem with gays promoting Harvey Milk as their ambassador to kids. If people have good and compelling reason to believe he is eligible to be registered as a sex-offender, which they do, then Harvey Milk as "hero" has NO PLACE around children. And those who knowingly promote him to children are guilty of abetting pedophilia. And I say this because as part of the etiology of pedophilia is the "grooming process" whereby the pedophile or his accomplices gradually introduce the concept of the eventual sex acts against the chid[ren] as "OK, fun, acceptable, normal, not to be feared or avoided". They often accompany these "lessons" with food, fun, cookies, treats [all psychological rewards]:

Just "segments" of the movie Milk. You know how kids are with movie snippets, they're going to want to see and learn more with the whole film. They'll remember the association AT SCHOOL with sweets and treats...

Again DO THE MATH.

 

If Milk was never convicted of a crime, I don't see how he could be registered as a sex offender. We are a country of due process and not lynch mobs

 

Yes, we're also a country of justice and no favortism towards crony politicians. It is suspected the reason Harvey Milk was shot was because he was sodomizing minors and nobody would stop him. Is a pity that the justice system didn't kick in to

1. Save Harvey Milk's victims from child molestation and

2. Save Harvey Milk therefore from being assassinated.

Asking if Milk was eligible [technically upon conviction, but] functionally for this conversation as a child-ambassador, is fair game.

If gays are promoting a KNOWN pedophile as their ambassador, they're telling us something about what they stand for.

Aren't they? Aren't they?

 

Should anyone be registered as a sex offender without being convicted of
sex crimes in court - you know, due process

 

What is it with your casual disregard for the law?

There is no provision for 'posthumous' trials in America.

You are convicting him posthumously without due process and for your own agenda.

Once again, this thread is like so many others of yours- it is purely an anti-gay thread.

Not once have you shown any concern for the majority of child sex abuse victims- girls. You are obsessed with linking gays with pedophilia, even though the majority of victims are girls who are abused by men.

 

SF Jeff, I didn't make the sex-offender registry laws retroactive to the 1940s, the State of California did.. That tells you how important they feel it is to keep pedophiles away from children. Also, sex offenders only have to be in the guilt-finding phase of a conviction to be mandated to registered...no conviction necessary... That's CA State Penal Code rules, not mine.

The reason this thread is about HARVEY MILK SPECIFICALLY being registered, or for reasonable people to believe he should be or should have been eligible to be registered is because gays have chosen him to be their ambassador to children....specifically to children...

I know it's fun for you to ignore this MONUMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE, but please, stop playing dumb. It is doing nothing to improve your credibility here..

 

I will leave my credibility versus your credibility to the readers here.

I will point out one more time that each of your threads has specifically been about your obsession with linking homosexuals to pedophilia. And that even though the majority of child sex abuse victims are girls, victimized by men, you have never once started a thread with concern for them.

You have proposed absurd interpretation of California law, have expressed your eagerness to ignore due process and convict dead people without trials.

I think thats wrong.

 

As will I. Evidenced by the poll results, I think I can be perfectly comfortable with that.

Yes, you're probably right, except for my threads addressing healthcare, nuclear energy, solar thermal energy, politics in Iran, jobs, green cars, the economy, etc... I supposed my "obsession" with homosexual pedophiles stems from the fact that they are embraced by gays, who right now are promoting one of them in a clear and open attempt to supplant mainstream sexual mores with an "anything goes" agenda. As you know, even though gays men make up 2% of the population, they account for over 1/3 of all molestations in the 100% group. Those are incredible numbers. So there would be one reason to focus. Another is that heterosexuals who prey on minor girls for sex aren't trying to teach that to kids in schools as "OK/legitimate/to be admired/emulated". If they were, you better believe I'd have threads devoted to it. So far, only gays and lesbians seem to embrace pedophilia by their choice of the pedophile Harvey Milk as their ambassador to children and by the plethora of terms in their linguistical heritage fondly referring to having sex with minors.

Don't blame the messenger.

I have posted actual penal code language that reflects that California sees sex crimes against children as so important, that they made the sex-offender registry retroactive to the 1940s! I cannot think of any other law that re-criminalizes, effectively re-punishes them that these particular people convicted, having served their time and been released, grown into old age...pedophiles...

That is because studies have shown that pedophiles, with a predisposition rampant among gay men particularly [if you want me to repost the CDC and Mayo Clinic studies again I happily will], particularly gay pedophiles have a nasty recidivism rate. And people need to know about them. Another thing people need to know about them is that they "groom" potential victims, first by gaining trust of their custodians and then slowly convincing the children that the ensuing sex acts are "fun, OK, not to be worried about", sometimes for many years before the victim is "ripe" for the picking.

Gays choosing a pedophile as their ambassador to children in CA schools, to help them "teach kids that gay is OK, that sexuality can be tied to kudos/accomplishments/powerful psychological rewards" is distubingly simliar to pedophlilic-grooming.

It is for this reason I ask to convict Harvey Milk posthumously. Because of the importance the Golden State attaches to even retroactively punishing/alerting society to pedophiles in their midst, and because of the choice by gay groups across the nation OF A PEDOPHILE TO HEAD UP THEIR AMBASSADORSHIP TO CHILDREN.

I'm sure you think that's wrong. Fortunately, the majority of California doesn't appear to agree with your way of thinking.. If put to a vote, I wonder how quickly Harvey Milk would be dethroned as a "gay hero" mandated to be taught to children to look up to?

My guess is, lightening-quick.

 

I will leave my credibility versus your credibility to the readers here.

I will point out one more time that each of your threads has specifically been about your obsession with linking homosexuals to pedophilia. And that even though the majority of child sex abuse victims are girls, victimized by men, you have never once started a thread with concern for them.

You have proposed absurd interpretation of California law, have expressed your eagerness to ignore due process and convict dead people without trials.

I think thats wrong.

 

I am not sure I even want to respond to this. I didn't like the movie and I didn't like the character...heck, I don't like California!

 

Don't you EVER get tired of lying, Silhouette???


Harvey Milk had his relationship with the 16 yo when he was in NEW YORK, where the age of consent is 16!!!!

YOU KNOW THIS IS TRUE!

I have pointed it out to you multiple times.

This WHOLE THREAD is absurd!!!

 

EVEN MORE ABSURDITY!

The relationship started when Mckinley was 16!

They broke up when the McKinley was TWENTY ONE!

That's about TEN YEARS after a male "begins to mature!"

Your vicious hatred and unreasoning attacks on gays are beyond irrational.

 

Sorry.

MOST STATES in the USA have the age of consent as 16. A few are 17 and 15 and 18.

MOST of America views 16 as old enough to choose your sexual partners.

 

Too bad for you that Harvey Milk, (and 99% of all gay people), does not even REMOTELY meet the definition of a "pedophile" or even a "Sex offender".

Otherwise, I agree with you 100%.

Gays didn't choose a pedophile, and part of the point in including Milk is that he was MURDERED and POSTHUMOUSLY HUMILIATED by people poisoned by the kid of anti-gay hate you spew that made it "OK" to kill a gay man.

Convict him of WHAT? ALL of your charges are LIES!!

His sole "crime" is YOUR rabid frenzy of hate!