Should Harvey Milk Have Been A Registered Sex-Offender?

I tend to agree. I "sexually" knew what I wanted (or wanted to experiment with) by age 16, for sure. I wouldn't have gone for a relationship with an adult male at that point though.

Some young people that age may not be ready... which is perhaps the reason 18 considered to be "adult" by most here in America.

 

No, but its old enough to make some decisions, although I would prefer an age limit - say at 16 you can only have sex with someone no more than five years older than you, or two years younger.

 

But you oddly seem only concerned about protecting boys....not girls....

Why is that?

You are willing to ignore due process to protect the rights of boys from being molested, but not one word of concern for girls.

I really don't believe for one moment that you are really concerned about the safety of children at all.

This is just an excuse for you to push your anti-homosexual agenda.

 

Yep. I came to that same conclusion months ago. Just look at his/her conclusions, makes what you say rather evident.

 

Other: sex offender registries should not exist because sex crimes are not fundamentally different from other crimes. We don't have registries for arsonists or tax-evaders or drunk drivers. Why have them for sex offenders?

 

Since the guy is dead, wouldn't that make this thread pointless?

 

The guy was gay, which is really his point.

Notice he didn't start a thread asking "Should Roman Polanski be required to be a Registered Sex- Offender", even though Roman Polanski is still alive and evading U.S. justice.

If Polanski had sodomized a 14 year old boy, instead of a 14 year old girl, he would have mentioned Polanski by now.

 

There wasn't a "This is purely speculation." option on the poll.

Guys dead, there is no directly proof he had sex with a minor, and more importantly this is simply another one of your threads attempting to demonize gays.

So yeah, keep rolling on.

 

"Direct proof" can be eyewitness testimony. And there is that in spades that he was sodomizing 16 year old Jack McKinley.

Unless you're now advocating that courtroom procedures [relying on eyewitness testimony] are somehow defunct?

And using your yardstick, Roman Polansky isn't guilty either, even though there's a warrant out and an indictment.

Wrong. I would require BOTH to be registered sex offenders. Roman Polansky isn't being taught to kids in California schools as "gay hero" either. You know what this topic is about: making people see at once that the same man chosen as "gay hero" is also eligible to be a registered sex-offender. Where the gay lobby is trying to blur lines, I'm trying to clear them up. Just as with Polansky the choice is clear: protect children first, worry about the "individual rights" secondary.

Unless your priorities are reversed?

 

Polanski plead guilty, and was convicted, and fled the country prior to final sentencing. Whereas Milk was never accused of a crime during his life time, nor did a victim file a complaint, nor was he convicted. You are basing this upon anecdotal evidence.

The title of your thread is whether Harvey Milk should have been a Registered Sex Offender, not anything about a 'gay hero'.

I think it is clear that the topic of this thread is your attempt to link homosexuality to pedophilia.

I am not sure how to answer this clearly. Any child in clear danger needs to be protected- if the child's house is on fire, we don't need a warrent to break in to rescue the child. If a man is discovered molesting a child, we protect the child by stopping the attack and having the man arrested. In these ways we protect children first.

But- and this is the big but- due process and individual rights do not go away because of a generalized concern about whether 'children' in general will be protected from a possible danger.

You are essentially arguing that anyone could be put on a list that immediately brands them forever based upon....well anything. If there is no 'due process' then your list would essentially be the Wikipedia of sex offenders lists- anyone could put on it anyone they decided was a danger.

Luckily the Constitution protects all of us from such whims.

And all victims of pedophilia deserve protection- not just boys.

 

California law doesn't confine the penal code mandate to protect children to just "known" dangers, it requires protection to also "suspected" dangers. If a person, like the gay activists in California for example, and the legislators responsible for SB-48 being enacted, and the Governor who signed it into law, had reason to believe that Harvey Milk flaunted/practiced child sodomy, as he in fact did and there is a book out documenting said, then they are MANDATED to exclude exposure of Harvey Milk to children in their jurisdiction as "a man to emulate"... Particularly in combination with "special parties, holidays, combined with the feeding of treats and such". Those scenarios are a de facto participation in the grooming-process of children to accept pedophilia as normal.

And that is illegal. Reasonable suspicion is enough to compel the protection of children. An actual conviction is not necessary.

I would say a book and a movie documenting Harvey Milk's public pedophilia constitutes "reasonable suspicion".

 

Denial of Far Lefts push to Legitimise NAMBLA is blindness

 

Milk according to all logic, reason, and law should be considered a sexual predator.

 

Guess we don't need the courts anymore. In many cases, it's probably a lot cheaper to just write a book or make a movie about someone than actually convict a person. Anyone wrote a book about Strom Thurmond yet? Guess we will need to take him out of the history books pretty soon. Darn.

 

CA Penal Code:

And in Milk's highly-publicized activities of sodomizing 16 year old Jack McKinley:

From the OP quote from "The Mayor Of Castro Street":

Harvey Milk was documented as sodomizing a 16 year old school-aged boy with severe and known substance-abuse problems. And he is also the gay-ambassador to school-aged children in California. I'd call that a conflict of interest at the very least. Criminal failure to protect is a more accurate term:

Teaching children to emulate a known pedophile quaifies as "health endangerment".

Here's the APA's stance on tying sexual behaviors to accomplishments with children. Lawyers, plug it in and GET TO WORK!

 

And there's more... http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=pen&codebody=&hits=20

The State of California considers the crimes of sex-offenses so important that they made the requirement for listing on the sex-offender's list retroactive. I wonder then could they also make the prosecution of a dead pedophile also "legal" if, as in Harvey Milk's case, gays or other people would use his image as a public figure to entice children to emulate contested sexual behaviors in school by tying these behaviors to "lauded accomplishments"?

That's why I suggested a posthumous conviction of Harvey Milk. His name, dead or alive, belongs on the registry:

CA Penal Code again:

After all, isn't this a public trial of Harvey Milk? California, interestingly enough, does not require a conviction to mandate sex-offender registry:

 

I am going to break down your logic here:

Yes, I remember your rather convoluted arguments about this before.

California law says:" or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health may be endangered,"

The law doesn't say a child's health is endangered if they are told about a man who is alleged to have committed a sex crime.

Reasonable suspicion is not enough to compel protection of children. Reasonable suspicion might lead you to keep your child from a neighbor you suspect of being a pedophile, but it doesn't mean you get to shoot your neighbor, or insist that the police arrest him.

If your rather silly- and homophobic theory were true- it would be illegal to teach children about snow skiing- since every year children's health is endangered when they ski down the ski slopes. Every year children are hurt, and sometimes die.

By using your very twisted logic, you could be arrested for even telling children of your snow skiing trip- because you would be 'grooming' them to participate in an activity where they might be harmed.

This is just another of your anti-gay threads, not so artfully disguised as faux concern for children.

 

Who cares? He's dead. Case closed.

 

Let's look at the law again SFJeff

In any teaching situation it is a possibility that a child may come to harm. Skiiing is a legal sport that children are allowed to participate in. Sodomy isn't, or is pedophilia. If a child is injured while honing his skiing skills, it is justifiable since he in the process of learning a legal activity that has been shown to be excellent for health, longevity via improvement of the cardiovascular system. One would hope that child gets over an injury, continues to improve to where his skills are smooth and his health takes him into old age in better shape than most around him.

Anal sex is a bit different isn't it? As is pedophilia and aiding and abetting exposing children to a known pedophile, alive or dead as a "hero figure", is putting that child at unjustifiable [as applies TO HIMSELF, not some political agenda] danger to his mental health.

There is no mitigating circumstance to coerce a child into emulating a known pedophile.

Between Milk and the 16-year old boy McKinley, they started the relationship in New York, but that relationship was illegal there.

They apparently flitted back and forth between New York and San Francisco throughout those years they were together. McKinley worked at a theater production stage in SF, CA before he climbed the ladder to become manager there.

Found this:

In California where the crime of underaged sodomy [still on the books today BTW, and because of the age difference between Milk and the teen McKinley, is a felony], they made the sex-offender registry retroactive to the early 1940s to include listing all those convicted, or even in the process of determining guilt but not yet convicted, to be registered as sex-offenders. Since as the other poster pointed out, the crime began in New York and crossed over into California during that time, and god knows how many states he sodomized the boy in on the drive to and from San Francisco, California requires any sex-offender from any state to register.

I'm thinking since the registry is a retroactive law, why not the "finding of guilt" aspect too? If this was just any old pedophile who was dead it would be one thing. But this is the ambassador of the gay-lobby in California. They have selected Milk above all other gay men to head up their "gay history" curriculum quickly mandated in schools there by the elite governance just after the voting public overwhelmingly made gay marraige illegal. Milk's illegal sodomizing relationship with the school-aged teen boy was well known, documented, and defended by gays everywhere. Still is to this day. However, that type of sexual relationship is a felony in CA where Milk is touted as a "historical hero"...get ready for this irony [and symptom of just about every pedophile there ever was or will be]..for his work as a politician where he gained notariety by his "outreach to at-risk youth".

The fact that Milk openly knew that the teen McKinley had a pervasive substance abuse problem, and because of this it was probably impossible for Milk to have sodomized him without McKinley being under the influence partially or fully of some intoxicating substance..also makes Milk qualify as a date-raper/child pedophile/felony sodomizer in the Golden State.

The fact that gays picked him to head up their PR-campaign to children is beyond bizzare. It is telling you something... It's telling you that you'd better get ready for the new cultural norms.

California the gay-rights petri dish. Get out your microscopes scholars!

 

Well thats at the heart of your whole campaign isn't it?

You despise homosexuals and use pedophilia as a pretext to condemn them.

That is why you always condemn pedophilia when it happens to boys, but have no apparent concern about the majority of pedophilia which happens to occur to girls.

Thread after thread about the dangers of homosexuals and pedophilia- and not one about the dangers of heterosexuals and pedophilia against girls.

Anyway- keep arguing the law. Your interpretation is beyond whacky, and arguing with you is like trying to teach a pig to dance. I

I strongly suggest you contact your local law enforcement and demand that they act upon your interpretation and start arresting state legislators.

Or maybe you can do citizen arrests? Just don't go armed- I wouldn't want anyone to get hurt.

 

I can always tell when you turn to insulting tactics SFJeff, that you are reverting to denial-defense mode.

So like I said to the other poster similar to you, "thanks for the compliments".

And usually when someone reverts to that reflexive "zing-mode", they are greatly fearful of the points they think they made, are exactly the opposite. It is as if they let the cat out of the bag by their derogatory-attachments to the points they associate with them.

Let's take your post and look at it. My italics in brackets will be where you have let the cat out of the bag about your fears:

Conclusion: I'm onto something you don't want to continue talking about.

 

Who is promoting pedophilia? No one.

Yes, everyone, please keep hateful/baiting comments off of hateful/baiting threads.

LOL. As a resident of NY, where same-sex marriage is legal, with so much as a collective shrug once it took effect, I would say California has fallen behind.

Of course, that doesn't give you an excuse to link homosexuality and pedophilia, since NY doesn't have a Harvey-Milk-type character.

 

Here, in case you missed it the last several dozen posts:

GAYS IN CALIFORNIA ARE DE FACTO PROMOTING PEDOPHILIA BY PURPOSEFULLY CHOOSING, BACKING AND DEFENDING A PUBLICLY-UNAPOLOGETIC, FELONIOUS, MINOR-CHILD SODOMIZER AS THEIR HEAD AMBASSADOR TO CHILDREN'S MANDATED "LEARN HOW SEXUAL BEHAVIORS ARE TIED TO ACCOMPLISHMENTS/PUBLIC KUDOS" CLASSES IN CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS AS WE SIT HERE DEBATING THIS.

THEY KNOW ALL ABOUT HARVEY MILK'S CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITIES WITH CHILDREN AND THEY CHOSE HIM AS THEIR AMBASSADOR TO CHILDREN.

DO THE MATH.

 

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.

 

Any person who openly commits sex crimes against children may not be then held out to children to emulate as associated with his sexual orientation/behavior.

That applies to anyone.

Let's get your second attempt to water down the import of gays choosing a pedophile to head-up their ambassadorship to children:

GAYS CHOSE HARVEY MILK, A KNOWN HOMOSEXUAL-PEDOPHILE, TO HEAD UP THAT POSITION.

Don't downplay that significance. If they had chosen a pedophile that preyed on girls, you'd be seeing his name replaced at the top of the thread instead of Harvey Milk's. But I should really say you'd see "her" name replaced at the top of this thread since this thread is about who HOMOSEXUALS chose as their ambassador.

This is about a choice made by gays, not by me. Though your denial-defense attempt to make it seem that way is admirable. And again, I know I'm getting very close to a red-line topic that bothers the hell out of you..

Obviously. It should . What a total blunder on behalf of the ever-stealthy, ever-cagey gay lobby...to choose a pedophile to be ambassador to children. And you know what? They almost pulled it off too. But now the cat's out of the bag, isn't it? Don't blame me. I didn't write "The Mayor of Castro Street"...