Gay Day at Disney

[Seawytch]

No, Katz, don't backtrack here. I understand fully that you have an opinion that being gay should never be considered "normal". That's NOT what I was upset about.



I was upset that you compared gay people to the likes of murderers and molesters, individuals who are violent, ruthless, sociopaths who have no regard for any life but their own. It's total bullshit.

Whoo boy, then do I have a post for you to read pal. It's post number #1354 Here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...reme-court-stops-gay-marriage-in-utah-91.html which is my response to "Seawytch's" unbelievably calloused and frankly apathic statement about a child being sodomized by a man. These are actually her very words regarding Harvey Milk's "sexuality", I kid you not :

Yes, he should have been prosecuted for statutory rape. Of course, someone would have had to give a big enough shit about a 17 year old homeless hustler living on the streets, to press charges.

Your compassion for the plight of homeless/orphaned runaway teens is noted for the record Seawytch... You're a lesbian, right? A proud member of LGBT nation, yes? And a parent of some two or three kids. Didn't you give away a son or two to a pair of gay men? I think that's what you said before. Something about a deal you had with some gay men where they kept one of the boy twins you had and you kept the other?



Jack Mckinley, the "homeless hustler" that nobody should "give a shit about" was 16, not 17, the key difference [as you know already] between his being a legal minor in the state of New York where Milk began sodomizing him.



So, once again, you are making excuses for the inexcusable. Why do you keep lying about how old Jack McKinley was when Milk began sodomizing him? Milk was 33 and McKinley was 16. The place: New York NY. The age of consent: 17. Is that why you keep lying about it? So it doesn't look like statutory rape?



And Jack McKinley's life was complicated. Like many teen boys with troubled home lives that run away, he turned to whatever he could to make money, and was addicted to drugs and quite hopeless. He struggled with suicidal thoughts all the time. Do you think Milk was taken advantage of by McKinley or the other way around? Note the age difference, and Milk's professed sexual appetite for "young waifs with substance abuse problems.."



What McKinley needed was a father figure who didn't bend him over at the waist for his jollies. McKinley needed a good home without abuse. But instead he found Harvey Milk and this final straw on his back caused him to jump to his death on Milk's birthday in NYNY where Milk began sodomizing him as a minor. McKinley and the dozens of other teen boys on drugs that Milk found his jollies with was nothing more than a wad of kleenex to Milk. Once the boy [then grown into a man/unacceptable sex partner beyond its shelf life] called Milk after Milk dumped him for fresher meat. McKinley was suicidal, missing his father/sodomizer. Milk told the person who answered the phone and was relaying the message, "tell him not to make a mess" [when he committed suicide] and then hung up on the Jack McKinley.



Since McKinley jumped to his death from a tall structure, I imagine he made quite a mess. You know how boys can be so rebellious towards their fathers...

McKinley was in his 30s when he committed suicide. He and Milk were together for 5 years. Your math needs work

 

[Silhouette]

Once again (and this is a very fair statement) you can't judge the entire gay population off the actions of one man. That's fucking ridiculous! If he was indeed a child molester, of course I think it would be wrong to admire him - however regardless he was just one man.

Can we call all straight people "perverted rapists" because hundreds of millions of people look up to Bill Clinton? That man has a dark, twisted history - btw - if you haven't looked into it.

People don't look up to Bill Clinton for having an affair or his dark/twisted political past. They look up to him because of how strong the economy was under his Administration. Of course his dark deeds detracted from his image.

In contrast, Harvey Milk's dark deeds are intrinsic to his celebrated status. His sexuality was and is the main issue of his uniqueness and fame. It is his sexuality for which OVER 60 LGBT groups in Canada, the US and Mexico lobbied to have a commemorative stamp made of him, complete with rainbow "USA' in the upper right corner.

 

[KevinWestern]

Once again (and this is a very fair statement) you can't judge the entire gay population off the actions of one man. That's fucking ridiculous! If he was indeed a child molester, of course I think it would be wrong to admire him - however regardless he was just one man.

Can we call all straight people "perverted rapists" because hundreds of millions of people look up to Bill Clinton? That man has a dark, twisted history - btw - if you haven't looked into it.

People don't look up to Bill Clinton for having an affair or his dark/twisted political past. They look up to him because of how strong the economy was under his Administration. Of course his dark deeds detracted from his image.

In contrast, Harvey Milk's dark deeds are intrinsic to his celebrated status. His sexuality was and is the main issue of his uniqueness and fame. It is his sexuality for which OVER 60 LGBT groups in Canada, the US and Mexico lobbied to have a commemorative stamp made of him, complete with rainbow "USA' in the upper right corner.

Is Milk celebrated for being openly gay during an era where gays were ridiculed, or is he celebrated - specifically - because he had sex with a man much younger than he was?

Which one is it, Sillhouette?

 

[Silhouette]

Is Milk celebrated for being openly gay during an era where gays were ridiculed, or is he celebrated - specifically - because he had sex with a man much younger than he was?

Which one is it, Sillhouette?

He is celebrated for being open about his particular sexual orientation while holding a public office. That is the kernel of his celebrated status. Google it.

For details on his sexual orientation, please read my signature.

 

[KevinWestern]

Is Milk celebrated for being openly gay during an era where gays were ridiculed, or is he celebrated - specifically - because he had sex with a man much younger than he was?

Which one is it, Sillhouette?

He is celebrated for being open about his particular sexual orientation while holding a public office. That is the kernel of his celebrated status. Google it.

For details on his sexual orientation, please read my signature.

No I understand. I agree - Harvey is celebrated for being openly gay while in office. He is not celebrated for being with a younger person. That's my point.

What are we talking about anyways? I think we've lost sight of the discussion, lol.

 

[Silhouette]

No I understand. I agree - Harvey is celebrated for being openly gay while in office. He is not celebrated for being with a younger person. That's my point.

What are we talking about anyways? I think we've lost sight of the discussion, lol.

OK, now I'm confused. Is "openly gay" the same as having a "penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems", one of which at least was a minor on drugs?

That last quote in italics was taken directly from his biography on page 180.

 

[Silhouette]

Kevin? Is "openly gay" the same as having a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems?

 

[American_Jihad]

Once again (and this is a very fair statement) you can't judge the entire gay population off the actions of one man. That's fucking ridiculous! If he was indeed a child molester, of course I think it would be wrong to admire him - however regardless he was just one man.

Can we call all straight people "perverted rapists" because hundreds of millions of people look up to Bill Clinton? That man has a dark, twisted history - btw - if you haven't looked into it.

People don't look up to Bill Clinton for having an affair or his dark/twisted political past. They look up to him because of how strong the economy was under his Administration. Of course his dark deeds detracted from his image.

In contrast, Harvey Milk's dark deeds are intrinsic to his celebrated status. His sexuality was and is the main issue of his uniqueness and fame. It is his sexuality for which OVER 60 LGBT groups in Canada, the US and Mexico lobbied to have a commemorative stamp made of him, complete with rainbow "USA' in the upper right corner.

Is Milk celebrated for being openly gay during an era where gays were ridiculed, or is he celebrated - specifically - because he had sex with a man much younger than he was?

Which one is it, Sillhouette?

 

[Silhouette]

No I understand. I agree - Harvey is celebrated for being openly gay while in office. He is not celebrated for being with a younger person. That's my point.

What are we talking about anyways? I think we've lost sight of the discussion, lol.

You mean a 16 year old minor homeless teen with substance abuse issues and mental illness. One of many Milk took in to sodomize. It is part of the topic because of the nature of the cult of LGBT and its seemingly unending quest to do a hard sell of itself to children or about accessing children.

Gay days at Disney is all about that access. Gay days at Disney is about adults showing up in unison, wearing themed t-shirts that represent a sexual lifestyle, at a childrens' theme park, in order to purposefully expose children to that sexual lifestyle theme. They do so unannounced [so people don't know to keep their children away] and they do so at the busiest time of year just after school gets out.

This is not one whit different than a creeper in a trench coat waiting to pop into the schoolyard just as recess lets out to flash the kids with an inappropriate topic for the schoolyard.

People who defend, minimize and make excuses for inappropriate sexual access to minors and troubled teens have no business trying to make a hard sell to even younger children at Disney...

 

[KevinWestern]

Kevin? Is "openly gay" the same as having a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems?

There are pedophiles and there are gay people. Two different things. If Harvey Milk was a pedophile (again, I don't know much about the guy) then obviously he's not worthy of looking up to in any way.

You're not talking to an H. Milk spokesperson; I can give two shits about him.

 

[Silhouette]

Kevin? Is "openly gay" the same as having a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems?

There are pedophiles and there are gay people. Two different things. If Harvey Milk was a pedophile (again, I don't know much about the guy) then obviously he's not worthy of looking up to in any way.

You're not talking to an H. Milk spokesperson; I can give two shits about him.

Well, you might want to pass the message on then to the 60 + LGBT groups in Mexico, Canada and the US that worked tirelessly to commission a postage stamp of him with your rainbow logo, all while they knew quite a bit much about the guy and his sexual orientation, which they label as "gay"...so...yeah...better get on that:

 

[Silhouette]

Have you gotten ahold of those 60 LGBT groups across the Northern Hemisphere Kevin? Have you told them how you feel about Harvey Milk being the messiah?

 

[KevinWestern]

Again - not a Harvey Milk researcher, promoter, or spokesperson. I told you what I thought about the guy.

Please take note that gay people existed before him, and will exist long after he's been completely forgotten.

 

[BillyZane]

Once again (and this is a very fair statement) you can't judge the entire gay population off the actions of one man. That's fucking ridiculous! If he was indeed a child molester, of course I think it would be wrong to admire him - however regardless he was just one man.

Can we call all straight people "perverted rapists" because hundreds of millions of people look up to Bill Clinton? That man has a dark, twisted history - btw - if you haven't looked into it.

People don't look up to Bill Clinton for having an affair or his dark/twisted political past. They look up to him because of how strong the economy was under his Administration. Of course his dark deeds detracted from his image.

In contrast, Harvey Milk's dark deeds are intrinsic to his celebrated status. His sexuality was and is the main issue of his uniqueness and fame. It is his sexuality for which OVER 60 LGBT groups in Canada, the US and Mexico lobbied to have a commemorative stamp made of him, complete with rainbow "USA' in the upper right corner.

Is Milk celebrated for being openly gay during an era where gays were ridiculed, or is he celebrated - specifically - because he had sex with a man much younger than he was?

Which one is it, Sillhouette?

Again, you're justifying.

Here's my "problem" with the so called LGBT community. There is no person or group of persons who they won't try to convince others is normal. Within 10 years they will be claiming that pedophiles are born that way, and their behavior shouldn't be criminalized. You know what I say is true.

And THIS is where it begins, with a fag who molested a teen age boy, any legitimate movement should separate themselves from someone such as that guy, not take him in as one of their own.

And here is where I'm sure you're a hypocrite, I'm QUITE sure that you condemn the entire Catholic church for the behavior of a few of their priests in regards to sex. And rightfully so as many in the church covered up the behavior and made excuses for it.

How loudly would you scream if the Church built a monument to a priest who was a known pedophile, but did good deeds otherwise?

I'm sure SeaWytch the liar will excuse this as another bad comparison, but as with Joe Pa it is completely valid.

 

[BillyZane]

Again - not a Harvey Milk researcher, promoter, or spokesperson. I told you what I thought about the guy.

Please take note that gay people existed before him, and will exist long after he's been completely forgotten.

And that excuses gays from celebrating this guy how?

 

[KevinWestern]

People don't look up to Bill Clinton for having an affair or his dark/twisted political past. They look up to him because of how strong the economy was under his Administration. Of course his dark deeds detracted from his image.

In contrast, Harvey Milk's dark deeds are intrinsic to his celebrated status. His sexuality was and is the main issue of his uniqueness and fame. It is his sexuality for which OVER 60 LGBT groups in Canada, the US and Mexico lobbied to have a commemorative stamp made of him, complete with rainbow "USA' in the upper right corner.

Is Milk celebrated for being openly gay during an era where gays were ridiculed, or is he celebrated - specifically - because he had sex with a man much younger than he was?

Which one is it, Sillhouette?

Again, you're justifying.

Here's my "problem" with the so called LGBT community. There is no person or group of persons who they won't try to convince others is normal. Within 10 years they will be claiming that pedophiles are born that way, and their behavior shouldn't be criminalized. You know what I say is true.

And THIS is where it begins, with a fag who molested a teen age boy, any legitimate movement should separate themselves from someone such as that guy, not take him in as one of their own.

And here is where I'm sure you're a hypocrite, I'm QUITE sure that you condemn the entire Catholic church for the behavior of a few of their priests in regards to sex. And rightfully so as many in the church covered up the behavior and made excuses for it.

How loudly would you scream if the Church built a monument to a priest who was a known pedophile, but did good deeds otherwise?

I'm sure SeaWytch the liar will excuse this as another bad comparison, but as with Joe Pa it is completely valid.

What the hell are you talking about Sillhouette? I've got nothing against Christians. It'd be silly to condemn the entire Church for the actions of a few human individuals. It's the teachings that matter, ultimately. Don't call me a hypocrite proactively please.

Again I'm defending people who are gay, not the popular ideals of those running the LBGT movement. Two different things.

 

[KevinWestern]

Again - not a Harvey Milk researcher, promoter, or spokesperson. I told you what I thought about the guy.

Please take note that gay people existed before him, and will exist long after he's been completely forgotten.

And that excuses gays from celebrating this guy how?

Dude, I don't fucking know. People - gay and straight - worship individuals all the time without knowing the true story behind the icon. People worship Clinton but he's a lying, murdering rapist. People worship Mandela but he did a lot of horrible things too.

Again, I don't understand why this thread has become a "try and defend Harvey Milk" thread. It's about holding a gay day at Disney.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Again, I don't understand why this thread has become a "try and defend Harvey Milk" thread. It's about holding a gay day at Disney.

It's an attempt to paint homosexuals with the broad-brush of pedophilia and raping minors.

Isn't that obvious?


>>>>

 

[Samson]

Again, I don't understand why this thread has become a "try and defend Harvey Milk" thread. It's about holding a gay day at Disney.

It's an attempt to paint homosexuals with the broad-brush of pedophilia and raping minors.

Isn't that obvious?


>>>>

Probably a Chic-fil-a Plot.

 

[Silhouette]

Dude, I don't fucking know. People - gay and straight - worship individuals all the time without knowing the true story behind the icon. People worship Clinton but he's a lying, murdering rapist. People worship Mandela but he did a lot of horrible things too.

Again, I don't understand why this thread has become a "try and defend Harvey Milk" thread. It's about holding a gay day at Disney.

Well, see, here's the problem. AFTER telling people about his sex crimes against those incapable of consent by virtue of their young age and/or their drug addiction and/or their mental illness, those people CONTINUE to defend Harvey Milk's sex life.

He isn't celebrated for his poetry, or his inventing the cotton gin, or being one of the founding fathers of the country. No, alas, the church of LGBT celebrate this one thing about him: That he was "openly gay" and held a public office while being so.

He was and is a terrible choice as a "civil rights" icon. The most telling part of the story is once or even if his followers know what his crimes were, they have not denounced him but instead ramped up their veneration of him.

His crimes against teens have been easily accessed by search engines on the internet for a very long time now. No one who avidly promotes him can claim ignorance.

Nice try though. Which again, appears evident as a defense/minimalization/excuse for the inexcusable.

At Disney, it is now the defending the creeper in the red-t-shirt trench coat descending upon Disney each year as recess is let out and the playground flooded with unsuspecting kids. There is a very unnerving trend of the church of LGBT doing a hard sell of their sexual deviance to youngsters. If they were all "born that way", why the hard sell?

What was the trojan horse for this behavior again?...oh, yes..I forgot, "reducing bullying...gay teen suicides"... What about the three boys who committed suicide from Harvey Milk's inappropriate actual physical sexual abuse of them [in contrast to the psychological abuse allowed at Disney each June]? Don't they count?