Should Harvey Milk Have Been A Registered Sex-Offender?

That's not true. The message here isn't Shilts, it's yours. You are just using unproven statements someone may have made to justify your message. A message that is nothing more than an opinion.

 

There's the lie - right there in this false statement you keep repeating. There is NO evidence that Milk was a pedophile (which means to have an interest in pre-pubescent children). Shilts doesn't say anything of the sort - that's coming from you.

 

62% of the voters here belive there is evidence he was sodomizing a 16 year old vulnerable drug addict. Let's repost the quotes from Randy Shilts' The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk. Randy Shilts was a personal friend of Harvey Milk. Randy Shilts, gay himself, was an acclaimed journalist who died of AIDS. Shilts took flack from the gay community for insisting public bath houses be closed down due to their being a main vector of the spread of HIV. Shilts was actually spat on by gays for daring to buck the iron fist of the rainbow push..even gay as his orientation was. A little pressure to conform I guess.. He would not relent however because his first loyalty was to truth in journalism and then to the gay movement. In that order.

For you Perriquine, insisting as you do a complete lack of indication that Milk was sodomizing the 16 year old drug addict, I'm going to bold some words to help you figure it out...

From the OP:

Does that help?

And for those who have lost track of the pages as the rainbow push bumps the page another notch towards the thread being closed...lather...rinse...repeat [right Perriquin, SFJeff?..lol..]

Here's the California Penal Code regarding Milk's behaviors. Don't forget, Harvey Milk is embraced by gays and gay advocate groups across America as their official "hero" of the gay movement as a whole.

I'll close this post by requoting from the book by Shilts above:

Harvey Milk "always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems"..

 

...which does not make him a pedophile. The word "waif" does not apply exclusively to children. It can also apply to adults, and even to animals. There is nothing about the context of Shilts writing that suggests Milk was a pedophile, which refers only to an interest in pre-pubescent children.

Give it up, Silhouette. You've been caught in a lie of your own making: a purposeful reinterpretation of Shilts' work in an attempt to make it mean something it doesn't.

 

It would be nice to see some basis for this assertion.

This relationship lasted for 5 years.

This is hardly the profile of someone who is a "pedophile" who "dumps children as they age out", to quote your hysterical statements.

There are many relationships and marriages between men in their 30s and teenage girls occurring RIGHT NOW and in the past!

Are you going to condemn our "worship of heterosexuals" for allowing them to be in our news and history books?

 

And once more- I will point out- you keep reposting quotes from Shilts book that do not once say that Milks was sodomizing anyone. Seriously, you accuse me of trolling because I point out over and over that what you claim is false- and you keep reposting the same thing, the same thing that does not say what you want it to say.

You keep claiming Milks was sodomizing this 16 year old, and you cannot manage to name or point to anything that says he was.

You have decided that is what Shilts is saying, even though you never provide a single quote from Shilts to support your claim.

Your blatant homophobia drives you to lie about what Shilts said.

Over and over again.

 

Okay so he was a ****phile who liked pubescent teenagers.

That is still sick.

 

And illegal. Don't forget this also..

Here Perriquine grasps at straws in his attempt to defend the indefensible. What else does he have at this point but to argue semantics of clear and discernable sex crimes against a vulnerable child by his "gay hero" Harvey Milk? Semantics and pulling singular words out of context with other very important ones that narrow in on precisely what the author Randy Shilts was talking about...

Saying the word "waif" you forgot to add "young"...here's the whole sentence again.

So now we know he was talking about "young waifs". And since we've got that cleared up, and we know his child target was 16 when he settle into "marriage" with him [indicating a sexual component], we can logically deduce he was sodomizing the young vulnerable, drug addicted boy who was in no shape to "consent" to sex. Unless you want to argue that Milk only had the boy perform oral sex on him exclusively? That still would be a crime.

And even if the 16 year old was an "old waif", to have sex with someone who is incapable of giving proper legal consent, who has mental issues and/or who is on drugs, is also a crime. In Harvey's case, it was four crimes: sodomizing a minor 1. vastly younger than he 2. and doing that while the minor had mental issues 3. and while the minor was on drugs 4. Age of consent in California where the two travelled to and lived temporarily frequently before finally settling there: 18 And that's for a person of sound mind and not on drugs.

Harvey Milk "always had a penchant for YOUNG waifs with SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEMS"

Next semantic argument to defend your pedophile/gay hero?

 

Per the information you have posted, Harvey Milk was NOT, repeat NOT, repeat NOT a pedophile. To continue to refer to him as such can only be called a LIE.

Stop lying, Silly.

 

Harvey Milk was in fact guilty of sex crimes against a minor intoxicated teen who was incapable of giving consent to sodomy. You can play with semantics all day. I will merely point out that he is "the chosen gay hero" defended here and elsewhere across the net as The Mayor of Castro Street> ground zero for the so-called gay-rights movement.

Having a man who committed known sex crimes against minors, prosecuted or not, as your "ambassador" for your movement is making a statement about your movement loud and clear. Promoting that same man to children as young as elementary school aged is the abetting of pedophilia. Children can rent "Milk" at their local video store..unless its R or X rated..and that is also saying something about touting him as a "gay hero" to kids. They can also check out the most comprehensive book on Milk to date from their local library: The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk. Kids are encouraged to "celebrate gay history" in California now. If I was a kid in school looking for extra credit I'd check out Randy Shilts book and use it to write a book report. You know, one of those really comprehensive ones that impresses the teacher by how many more facts you found in the book than common knowledge reflects... High-achieving kids do those type of reports all the time..

Just in case you missed the OP:

Do they have those parts blacked-out for when kids check the book out of the library for "gay history reports" or is there a sanitized version only allowed to children? And if there are two versions and one of them depicts sex crimes against minors, how appropriate is it to have children celebrating that same man as "a gay hero"?

 

Reposting the same tired old BS doesn't make you right, Silly the Human Spambot, it just makes you annoying.

Per the information you have posted, Harvey Milk was NOT, repeat NOT, repeat NOT a pedophile. To continue to refer to him as such can only be called a LIE.

Stop lying, Silly.

 

I would say the precise same thing to you, only I would add something else. Your "spamming" is accusatory without substance. My "spamming" is defensive and with substance. If you're going to repeat posts here insisting someone else stop posting, make sure you don't include accusations that you know they can substantively refute.

We are talking about a man who had illegal sex with minors, being held out to minors as "a gay hero". Now here comes the "pedophile" part... You can call him a [whatever]-o-phile but the end result is the same: a vastly older adult having illegal sex with a minor on drugs, emotionally unstable and ergo incapable of legal consent.

Now that we have established that, holding out that same man for CHILDREN in California schools to emulate as "a hero" when any one of those children could check out the book in the library on his comprehensive life and times by his acclaimed gay journalist friend Randy Shilts, is ABETTING PEDOPHILIA.

Inappropriate exposure to children of a sex-criminal against children representing a loose collective of deviant non-reproductive compulsive sexual fetish behaviors as "their hero" is collusion at the most insidious level. It is introducing smoothly and stealthily the idea of "sex with kids is OK" under the cloak of something else "how gays have suffered through history".

I suggest a course to be taught right alongside this "suffrage" course in CA elementary schools: It's about another minority group who has suffered for thousands of years at the hands of their oppressors. Can you guess who I'm talking about?

Child victims of sex crimes by adults. Teach that right alongside gay history, just after the course on HIV and the statistics surrounding who most likely has HIV and how it is spread..

Interesting side-note. The same gay journalist friend of Harvey Milk who wrote "The Mayor of Castro Street, The Life and Times of Harvey Milk", Randy Shilts, [who contracted HIV and died from AIDS] was spat on while walking on Castro Street [ironically]. He was spat on by other gays who called him a "traitor to his kind" because he published saying he believed gay bath houses and clubs should be shut down to help curb the spread of HIV. Shilts was known above all [even above being gay, imagine that?] for his journalistic integrity and honesty. He held that above being gay and his "own kind" punished him for that.

So, there you go.. Even within the gays' own ranks they have an iron fist "keeping their cultural "values" intact" by ridicule, debasement or outright force.. It's a movement all right... It's "The Rainbow Push"..

 

You have posted no proof that Milk was a pedophile. Proof that he was a Grade A creep, sure. (Note: I never said he WASN'T a creep.) Proof that he was a pedophile, no. You need to stop lying.

 

And once again- you keep saying this.....

And you still don't provide any evidence to support your claim.

You have yet to provide a single bit of evidence that Harvey Milk was guilty of a sex crime against a minor- intoxicated or not, sodomy or not.

You are making this up.

For your homophobic agenda.

Once again- you will not provide any proof for your claim. But you keep making it. Does that make it a lie? I don't know....but it is far from the truth.

 

Are you talking to Randy Shilts SFJeff? He died of AIDS years ago. Did you forget that he wrote the following words from his chronical of the Life and Times of Harvey Milk [The Mayor of Castro Street]?

Remember, I didn't write these words. Randy Shilts, Harvey Milk's longtime friend, did...

I put the relevent words in bold in case you try to pretend that you somehow cannot comprehend the meaning of them again.

Look, the cat's out of the bag. Harvey Milk committed sex crimes on minors and intoxicated young people. Those crimes were well-known and documented. Milk himself admitted to them and didn't apologize..insisting they were part of his "normal" sexual appetite. Read the book. Anyone can check it out from the library.

Gays across the board have chosen a man who committed sex crimes against minors to be their "gay hero". Now, what does that say about the gay movement at large?

Other people can see this. Gays like SFJeff are doing triple backflips trying to play on semantics...take things out of context...twist words...defend...strawmen...diversions of all manner...whatever grasping-at-straws technique can divert the eye and yet they still remain in a box-canyon with no way out. The fact that they CHOSE [past tense] a child sex criminal as their unofficial/official ambassador is a poor decision. The best thing gays can do at this point is to turn their back on Milk and admit choosing him as their ambassador was a mistake.

And yet curiously, they're not doing this...but instead jumping to defend the indefensible...which in itself is like putting underscore and bold italics on the revelation about the gay movement in general that this thread has unveiled..

 

Okay- Let's go over how you still have not provided one single piece of evidence to support your claim

I know who Randy Shilts was. Why it is important to you that he died of AIDS I don't know, but unfortunately many people have died of AIDS.

So lets review the words he wrote:


"It would be to boyish-looking men in their late teens and early 20's that Milk would be attracted for the rest of his life." (page 24)

No mention of sex here. Late teens and early 20's- late teens could mean 18- no indication of sex with minors here.

"Harvey always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems." (page 180)

Okay- still not one word about sex or minors here.

"Harvey confided one night that at twenty-four, Doug was the oldest man Harvey had ever started an affair with." (page 237)..

Okay- still not one word about sex with minors here- and no mention whatsoever of sex with Mckinley.


“…sixteen-year-old old McKinley was
looking for some kind of father figure…within a few weeks, McKinley moved
into Harvey Milk’s Upper West Side apartment…and settled into a middleclass
domestic marriage..

Ah here we go- 'domestic marriage'- I am guessing that you believe this means sex....but still not one word about them having sex....still you haven't produced any evidence of them having sex.


Coldly agreed with a former lover’s suicide threat
“…the phone rang. As soon as Harvey heard the voice, he rolled his eyes
impatiently at Jim. ‘It’s Jack McKinley,’ he said. He paused and listened
further. ‘He says he’s going to kill himself.’…‘Tell him not to make a mess,’
Harvey deadpanned. Jack hung up.” (Source: Randy Shilts, The Mayor of
Castro Street, p. 126)

And again...not one word of Milk sodomizing a 16 year old in this quote either. And there is another lie there also. And that first line- "Coldly"- not Shilts words as Silhouette claims.


Remember, I didn't write these words. Randy Shilts, Harvey Milk's longtime friend, did...

No- Shilts didn't write all of those words. But for the ones you did actually quote correctly- Shilts doesn't once say what you say he is saying- he never once says that Milks was sodomizing a 16 year old.


I put the relevent words in bold in case you try to pretend that you somehow cannot comprehend the meaning of them again.

And yet, the words in bold still do not indicate once that Harvey Milk had sex with a minor- no matter how much you say they do.

Look, the cat's out of the bag. Harvey Milk committed sex crimes on minors and intoxicated young people. Those crimes were well-known and documented. Milk himself admitted to them and didn't apologize..insisting they were part of his "normal" sexual appetite. Read the book. Anyone can check it out from the library.

You keep making this claim, yet you can't find a single quote to support it. . Not one. Based only upon what you have shown us- there is no evidence to support your claim.

It appears to be the product of an overly active homophobic imagination.

Two points- thanks for assuming that I am gay- I can only assume that my concise writing style and good fashion sense made you assume that I am gay- but really, I am just very happy.

Secondly- the only one taking things out of context are you.

You can't find one piece of evidence to support your claim. Not one.



And I will point out again- you have started multiple homophobic threads- all withe pretext of pedophilia.

But you have not once said a thing to defend the majority of pedophilia victims- you appear only to care about boys, not girls.

You have not once condemned any of the known men who have committed sex crimes against girls- such as Roman Polanski- who plead guilty to sodomizing a 14 year old girl.

This is all part of your anti-homosexual agenda. You dont' whether children are the victims of pedophiles- your only agenda is to convince people that homosexuals are bad.

 

Homophobic = fear of homosexuals.

I don't fear homosexuals. If I did, I would stay away from them and never start threads inquiring as to the intricacies of their etiology. Fear makes you avoid that which you are afraid of. Starting threads that boldly explore what makes homosexuals tick and what their "agenda" is all about [Rainbow Push, Zapping the APA, GLAAD, etc.] is inviting homosexuals to appear and interact with me.

That would be like someone with arachniphobia starting up a tarantula-breeding operation.

So perhaps you'll have to find another demonizing term to make this very uncomfortable topic of gays choosing a child-sex criminal to head up their "Rainbow Push"...go away..

 

Since when is it demonizing to point out that you refuse to prove any of your claims?

That you keep making the same claim over and over and refuse to provide any evidence that Harvey Milk was a 'child-sex' criminal?

if that is demonizing, well I guess supporting the truth is demonizing.

 

Folks with arachnophobia are unlikely to promote the development of tarantulas in that way... but they might well find themselves attacking spiders. Sometimes irrationally.

 

Or encouraging laws or actions to restrict the spread of spiders.....

 

The irrational fear that gays are out to attack your children. Sounds like an irrational phobia to me. You fine any shreds of evidence you can and try to blow it out of proportion to demonize and justify your feelings against homosexuals.

 

You might do that without being arachnophobic. To determine whether there was an underlying irrational fear we would have to see if the laws and restrictions proposed were justified with real needs and dangers. Or just proposed to hurt the object of their fear.

 

Do "shreds of evidence" include gays en masse picking Harvey Milk, known criminal of sex crimes against minors, as their "historical hero/ambassador to children" in California schools? Is that an "irrational fear"? Or is that actually happening. Oh, that's right. It's actually happening..

I'd like to see just a small handful even of gay-advocates come on here and say "you know, as much as I hate/dispise/loathe/fear/demonize/etc. Silhouette, Sil has the point that Harvey Milk probably shouldn't have been chosen as the gay-ambassador".

Even just one gay advocate saying "poor choice, true" or words to that effect. But so far all we see is defending Harvey Milk. Which is the same of course as defending sex crimes against minors. And that, quite unfortunately for gays, is the bold, italics, underscore to the points I'm making here.

 

Well thats true- that would always be the case.

Lets go one step further- and say that a person claimed to be concerned about victims of 'animal bites' in America, and then focused all of his energies on eradicating spiders- all in the name of eliminating the danger of animal bites.

Even though dog bites actually injured more every year, this person was trying to convince everyone that the most serious danger was spider bites.

Maybe even going to the degree of claiming deaths from spider bites even when the literature didn't show any such deaths.

 

Except of course you still haven't shown any sex crimes against minors by Harvey Milk.

And you keep repeating that claim, and you won't prove it.