Should Harvey Milk Have Been A Registered Sex-Offender?

Sorry, can't put words into my mouth. If you're going to accuse me of being OK with Harvey Milk being murdered, you will have to provide the quote or risk disciplinary action by the moderators for flame-baiting.

You can't, just because you feel an argument slipping through your fingers like sand, resort to belligerence like you just did. It ruins the decorum of the debate. I suggest you withdraw, take a few deep breaths and return to the discussion when you've composed yourself.

Meanwhile, Harvey Milk's life may have been saved, as I said before, if the children he was sodomizing were spared by his being arrested and brought up on the charges he openly professed to be guilty of.

Read the book, The Mayor of Castro Street. And then tell me again why gays chose a man who date-raped and sodomized a minor teen, via Milk's having a "penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems"?

All I hear so far from gay-advocates is that Harvey Milk wasn't guilty of sodomizing drug-addicted 16-year old Jack McKinley because "16 should be the age of consent". That's it. That's the rebuttal so far. And it isn't one. Because for a 30-something man to sodomize a 16 year old on drugs in the State of California is a felony twice over.

Either he was having anal and oral sex with drug-addicted 16-year old Jack McKinley in violation of State law or he wasn't. Not, "oh it's OK in spite of the law to break the law"! Fer crissakes..

 

Anyone who defends or supports Harvey Milk's pedophilia is disgusting and a monster.

 

Or just letting the cards in their hand show.

I've asked other posters not to demonize those who suffer. So please, keep it down to a dull roar OK mason?

 

What I'm hearing is that the acts did not take place in California, in which case the rebuttal is that it's not against California law.

 

Harvey milk wasn't a pedophile

 

They did..Milk & the 16 year old travelled back and forth between NY & CA. In NY, the age of consent was 17. There was sex-crime either state & all between in travel.

So, ergo, the crimes were comitted.

 

So diddling underage teenagers who was drugged up isn't pedophilia now?

 

He was what NAMBLA members aspire to be .

 

I just think it's a very strong statement that all of us are pretending not to hear when gay organizations across the board [ergo one can say "gays" and the statement will be inclusively-accurate] all support and promote Harvey Milk knowing he committed sex-crimes against at least one minor, and probably more according to the accounts in The Mayor of Castro Street. Having a "penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems" has the word "waif" in plural form.

Google Harvey Milk and you will be stunned to see the unanimoty line up behind his promotion. And in California, his promotion to children in schools as representative-personified of "what a gay hero should look like to children".

 

Somebodies opinion about his "penchant" not withstanding, Harvey was never convicted of sex crimes. If he was alive and if you were certain he was having sex with a minor, I'd encourage the law to investigate. He's not.

I think it's a mistake to put anyone on a pedestal. I think it's also a mistake to discount the good things folks did, because they also did bad things. I'd rather history books didn't refer to anyone as a hero, but simply reported their public words, actions, and impact on society. That goes for Columbus, Thomas Jefferson, President Kennedy, and yes... even Harvey Milk.

 

he never "diddled underage teenagers". He did have a relationship with a 16 year old who was legally able to consent.

 

12 pages of pushing Silly's not-so-hidden agenda...ye gods, what a waste of bandwidth.

 

NOT IN THE LATE 1970's

 

rahl, you should really do research into this before you open your mouth further and embarrass yourself.

 

Let Ral start Defending Pro Masculine (Gay) Minor Attracted (NAMBLA) types as practioners of an Alternative Lifestyle who need the Same Special Rights & Protections that the GLBT crowd gets...

 

"Let"? This thread is not just about Rahl defending and promoting child sex criminals, it's about THE ENTIRE ORGANIZED GAY COMMUNITY doing so. If you challenge me on that, Google "Harvey Milk" and see what comes up and who is promoting him. It ain't NAMBLA...they're waiting until later..

WRONG:

Harvey Milk was in his mid-30s while sodomizing a 16 year old in NYNY, and San Francisco, CA and any states between there they travelled through and spent the night and he sodomized the boy in.

Age of consent in New York: 17. Therefore a crime.

Age of consent in California: 18. Therefore a crime.

And that was both then and now.

Also, Harvey Milk apparently enjoyed date-raping minors. From the book The Mayor of Castro Street

California has laws about that as well. And they apply not just to minors but to anyone who has been taken advantage of/coerced sexually while suffering from mental issues like addiction, or actually under the influence:

Harvey Milk not only knew, he selected for that trait in his young sex victims..

And finally there's also this. Again from the book cited above. I'll add what we know that applies to the previous laws in italics/bracket:

So for those keeping up, McKinley couldn't tell the difference between a father or a sex partner, which might explain his homelessness and drug-addiction in the first place. In any event it is clear that McKinley was suffering mentally and that Harvey Milk was full aware of it and played father/husband to the shattered boy so he could get his jollies as long as McKinley was young enough to sexually satisfy him. Turns out that ended rather quickly as Milk went from one young sex partner to another after dropping McKinley like a stone when McKinley's mental problems [and aging] became a bummer for Milk.

 

Let ALL the far left voices here Run Free ...

 

The fact that you posted that yesterday Gator and suddenly the conversation stopped, means that those coordinated voices promoting Harvey Milk suddenly fell silent.

I wonder why?...lol... Could it be the penal code from CA I posted describing Harvey Milk as a felonious child-sex criminal?

Maybe...

 

No, it isn't. Pedophilia has a very specific clinical meaning, referring to a desire for sexual relations with pre-pubescents. A teenager (especially one aged 16 years) is not a pre-pubescent.

Was there such a thing as a sex-offender registry when Milk was alive? I honestly don't know.

Whether or not Milk's actions were criminal is a moot point, since he wasn't prosecuted. Whether he should posthumously be characterized as a sex offender despite never being prosecuted strikes me as political, not a matter with any practical relevance outside its use to propagandize against gay people.

Do I condone these asserted actions by Milk? Certainly not. Do we throw his contributions out because of those actions? I'm not any more persuaded of that than I am on the idea that we should eliminate any teaching about George Washington or Thomas Jefferson based on their "ownership" of slaves. Understanding history doesn't mean only observing the nice parts.

Do I think Milk is a role model? Certainly not with regard to his personal life. Do I view him as some sort of gay hero? Not really, but then I've never had much use for or need of heroes.

Quite clearly the purpose of this thread is not really to discuss Milk, but to be used as a vehicle by Silhouette to propagandize against gay people more generally.

Milk is a controversial figure, and I don't think he should be worshipped. Nor do I think his existence is inconsequential, either. The truth of the matter lies somewhere between, where we acknowledge both his achievements and his flaws.

 

I hope that we can do an initiative to vote to repeal the State Harvey Milk Holiday. It is rediculous that the far left radicals in the state of California have pushed their perverted dogma this far into our public school systems by honoring a pervert in our schools. I am a native Californian, but this makes me want to leave the state. I don't wish to have my tax dollars be spent on this.

 

A couple of things are wrong with that statement:

1. Each developing child is different. And hence the MINIMAL legal age of 18 to be sure the net is wide enough to include all.

2. The qualifier of "pre-pubescent" is moot. Adolescence doesn't happen over night. Along with obvious physical changes are deep psychological adjusments from the word of "child" to "adult". These can and do take many years. Those years vary [see #1].

3. Adolescent psychological developmet can be grossly stunted if the child comes from a broken home and/or is on drugs, like Harvey Milk's target-group were: "Harvey Milk had a penchant for young waifs with substance-abuse problems".

4. We are talking about the legal definition of minors, therefore [and with good reason]: Under 18.

It isn't a "moot point". It is THE POINT of this thread. Does he qualify as a child sex-offender by today [and even then's] standards? If the answer is "yes", then the point is extraordinarily relevent since he is the 'chosen one' by gay advocates everywhere as their "hero".

Then teach kids in California schools his whole biography and not just part of it. But oh, wait, because his crimes were sex-crimes against minors, you wouldn't be able to get away with that would you?

No, you wouldn't.

The comparison between the founding fathers and gays is apples and oranges. When we teach THE WHOLE STORY of Washington and Jefferson, it is a story that is in an atmosphere where slavery is and has been for quite some time now: illegal and in this country anyway, abolished. However, child sex crimes go on behind closed doors [and out in the open in CA schools] to this very day. Child sex crimes have not been abolished in practice. And now you're arguing to "quasi-legalize them" via defending a child-sex criminal. It doesn't stop there, it goes on to teaching children to emulate him. You're advocating that.

You have not said here "Yes, I agree. It was a poor choice of gays to have a known pedophile, sodomizer of minors, whatever semantics you will allow to describe why you said "do I condone these..actions by Milk..certainly not." be ambassador to children.

You haven't said that. The proper thing for gay advocates to say is: "We made a mistake choosing Harvey Milk as our ambassador to children. We realize there is ample evidence to show he committed sex crimes against minors. We respectfully withdraw him as an example to children to emulate as representative of "all good things gay".

But instead we hear silence? And perhaps that's because deep down, gays do find him the true representative of "all good things gay".

And hence the reason why you get things like Proposition 8 in California, the recent Idaho legislative defeat and Governor Christie's vetoing of gay marraige in New Jersey.

And here is the "gotcha" moment. You say that Milk is "controversial", "not to be worshipped" and his existence "[has consequences]". And so logically since gays consider Milk as the "epitome gay", their hero, their "Mayor of Castro", what you've just now said is that gays admit what they do is "controversial", "not to be worshipped" and "has consequences". And I would be very much in agreement with that. I would only add at this point that these facts shouldn't be used to harm gay people, but merely to understand their deep psychological issues and extend compassion without promotion of what they do; especially to children..

If the truth of the matter lies somewhere in between, where we acknowledge his achievements and his flaws, why has he been chosen by gays to head up the "important gays in history" lessons mandated in California schools? And why, in those lessons, are any disparaging qualities of Milk forbidden to be mentioned? [Even though they exist in books and film where those same children can access to find out he committed sex crimes against children]. That isn't only sending a double message, it is condoning crime against kids.

Child sex crimes haven't been abolished, they've only been made illegal. The sufferage of children under this yolk is one of the most underplayed civil rights problems of all time. Promoting a pedophile mandated to children to look up to would be like forcing black children to emulate a brutal slave owner whose open crimes against blacks escaped prosecution..making the sting even worse.. Or having a wingnut christian all-male panel decide what type of birth control women can access..

The suffrage of children is entirely ignored in the topic of Harvey Milk. It is my intention to point out as you said, why he "is controversial"..."not to be worshipped"..and that promoting him "has consequences"....

 

Some of us have other things to do besides pointing out that all you are doing is what you always do, which is pushing your very specific anti-homosexual agenda.

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.

 

Very much so, he was having sex with an underage teen. Hopefully they make that point loud and clear when they try to champion him in the classroom. But they won't, not allowed to tell the whole truth when it comes to these manners.

 

And you SFJeff appear to be diverting the topic away from the fact that gays are promoting a known pedophile to children.

Perriquine agrees that this is problematic. At least part of her does:

 

So far the gay argument seems to be that since the victims of Harvey Milk's sexual appetite were "ruined anyway from broken childhoods", that his inducing them to be sodomized by him "isn't doing any real harm to society".

You know, since drug-addicted teens "aren't really people", vulnerable people, with even more special needs for protection from exploitation..

There should be a sister thread to this one called "Should drug-addicted 16-year old street waif Jack McKinley have been considered in full command of his faculties to consent to sex with 33 year old Harvey Milk"? The CA Penal Code's vote on that one would be a resounding 'NO'.