Should Harvey Milk Have Been A Registered Sex-Offender?

Though I encourage anyone reading here to read the entire book quoted below, for the purposes of this poll I'll just include some relevent quotes.

Now here's the tricky part. The age of consent at the time, as now in California is 18. Harvey Milk was in his 30s when he started having sex with 16 year old McKinley. Typical with pedophilia, as soon as McKinley's body begain to mature, Harvey Milk discarded him for younger [looking] sexual partners.

Milk was open and unapologetic about his sexual exploits with underaged and of-age at-risk youth, discarding one after the other as they matured. Again, typical of pedophilia. Today there is a law called "Meghan's Law" which requires that pedophiles be registered so that communities can recognize them and keep their children away from them. This Law didn't exist back when Milk was alive but if it had, would it apply to him?

If Harvey Milk was alive today, should he be prosecuted for sex with minors and listed on the sex-offender's registry?

 

Of course he should have.

Regardless of the age of consent, whenever a radical difference between the relative power and maturity of the people involved, consent is not possible to be given.

 

Had he been shot in the head by some concerned citizen this would not be an issue.

 

kenrich and others, please keep comments like that out of this conversation. On top of your solution also being illegal, it adds fuel to the fire of gay advocates that they then use to actually win successful legal ground based on "being picked on".

Also, no religious spouting for the same reason. Please refrain. Use logic. That is a remedy they cannot defeat.

 

Very well. Of course he should have been registered as a sex offender.

 

Thanks. So far 100% is the vote for "yes".

 

Depends on whether it actually happened or if it's just in some book.

 

"Some book" was not a slam on Milk. It revered Harvey Milk's sexual exploits of boys. So there was no malice of intent on behalf of the author to paint out something that wasn't true.

Moreover, I imagine one could research the police reports associated with the following exposes on wave-effect of pedophilia and how it becomes "normal sexual behavior".

 

If he was convicted of the crime, yes. Same for Jerry Lee Lewis. There doesn't seem to be much to this question unless you're concerned about whether the sex-offender registry should exist at all.

 

And there's more.

And..

What a coincidence..becaue the Gay and Lesbians Actors Against Defamation [GLAAD] has a very similar outlook on expanding their cultural values and more. They are very influential in what your kids and you see on the tube BTW. That would explain the recent plethora of gays and lesbians flaunting that deviant culture from sitcoms to movies, plays, books and so on. Top of my mind would be a recent interview Stephen Colbert did with the openly "gay" author Maurice Sendak. Sendak's illustrations of naked boys in his books drew some unwanted attention to the gay movement I'm sure.

Here's GlAAD's similiar sentiments to Harvey Milk's on expanding the gay [apparently child-friendly?] culture. In huge block print at the opening of this document are the words: Full Equality cannot be achieved until our culture evolves and acceptance of our community becomes widespread.

Notice that one of the most arguably potent and effective tool of the gay lobby, GLAAD and their various media and internet blogger-teams, organized and coordinated [they make no secret of this], is not just that they gain equality, but that they supplant mainstream culture with their values. When blacks gained equal rights, you didn't hear Dr. Martin Luther King demand a complete usurping of white cultural values. When women gained the right to vote, you didn't hear them demanding that men also be required to wear dresses, menstruate and belong to knitting circles. Equality is not really what's going on here is it?

 

No malice in a book that claims he had sex with boys?

What was the name of this book, again?

 

Silhouette. THIS is what HMilk said. Not only is it cold, hateful, unfeeling and cruel, it is WHAT was said by the left's hero Harvey Milk. I don't know how anyone can defend this guy.

“…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)

Having said that...the guy is dead. And maybe THAT was HIS karma.

 

If your thread wasn't clearly just another not so subtle attempt to equate homosexuality with pedophilia, it would be an interesting question.

I think that anyone who is convicted of pedophilia should be registered as a sex offender.

I think that anyone who has illegally had sex with a minor should be prosecuted and convicted.

This applies almost exclusively to men, who prey upon girls and boys.

As in all of these threads, if the concern was about pedophilia, or even about sex offenders, there would at least be some discussion of female victims- the large majority of victims- but these discussions are always about male victims- the minority of victims.

That to me is always the clue as to the actual agenda of these threads.

 

btw. I believe there is a link between homo/pedo.

 

Both have 4 letters?

 

You don't approve of either?

 

Welcome back SF Jeff. Long time no see. Weren't you at the other forum before it closed?

Anyway, so to be clear on the quote from you, only if Harvey Milk was convictied of pedophilia should he be on the sex-offender's list. If he openly admitted to it, but was too-well positioned politically for anyone to dare convict him, then you think he shouldn't be on the sex-offender's list?

Did I get that right? Because what he was doing at the time was illegal and still is to this day. People knew about it but nobody did anything about it on behalf of Jack McKinley's welfare, or the welfare of the People of the State of California.

I just want to be perfectly clear where you stand on this.

As for linking this to gays/pedophilia, you're right. But remember, I'm not the one who chose Harvey Milk to head up the ambassadorship to children in California schools a la SB-48. Whoever did that was making the link...

 

loaded with vowels.

 

Your assumption as to why a person was not convicted of a crime isn't relevant. Unless the person volunteered to be put on the registry, I would be reticent to see anyone's name added without due process. Wouldn't you?

 

I certainly would.

 

I believe in the process of law- and that most essential of American rights that no one should be deprived of the due process of law.

No one should be put on the sex-offenders list just because they 'admitted it' or someone accused them of something.

As the law says- they should be put on the list after being convicted of a sex crime.

What part about my position is unclear to you? I believe it applies to anyone who is convicted- and if Harvey Milk had been convicted of a sex crime, and the list existed then, then I would say put him on the list. I say that Roman Polanski should be on that list.

.

I have no clue as to what you are talking about.

I will point out once again, as I did in the previous thread that you seem obsessed about linking gays to pedophilia- and show no concern at all about the actual victims of pedophilia.

Because as we all know- the majority of pedophilia victims are girls.

And you never mention them.

Is it because you don't care for girls?

Or is it because it doesn't suit your agenda?

I don't really know, and don't really care. But every time I see you starting another thread about this subject I will raise the issue again and again- why are you so much more concerned about the crime when it happens to boys than when it happens to girls?

 

If a person openly admitted to sodomizing a minor, I would not only push for his prosecution, but insist on it. And if he had friends in high places [unlike the unfortunate LA child-inseminator busted recently], I would still insist he be placed on a public registry.

We are weighing the rights of two seprate people here. I happen to favor one over the other when it comes to rights and due process. Children have a right for us to excersize due process and due diligence to protect them from known dangers. Did you know that failure to protect a child is against the law? You can state any reason you like, but if you knew a child might likely come to harm and you did or said nothing to stop it, you are in violation of criminal law. At least in most states this is the case. I think CAPTA funding requires it actually as a mandate in order for each state to receive funding.

 

I don't have a problem with that.

I have a problem with that. I believe in due process. Our criminal justice system isn't perfect, but I prefer it to punishing people based on your beliefs.

Then exercise the due process. Until the law has had it's say your belief that some unknown child at some unknown time in the future may be mistreated is not sufficient to waive the legal rights of Harvey Milk or the next guy you want to point a finger at.

And no, you won't be brought up on criminal charges if something bad happens because you didn't cyber-lynch some guy when you had the chance. You might though if you push to get someone publicly labeled as a child molester and something bad happens to them because of it. Especially if you're wrong.

 

I think a 16 year old is mature enough to make their own decisions. I don't see a problem. I find it weird that he would go for young men, but at 16, you are old enough to know what you are doing.

 

Uh so 16 is old enough to recieve Death Penalty or get Married or Join Royal Marines ?