Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[Barb]

Hate to be the bearer of news you will find bad...gays can already adopt in most states and could before we started legally marrying each other.

Oh, and the kids are fine, **** you very much.

Don't be grumpy. I'm not the one who made law enshrining a teen sex predator the icon of my social movement. I'm not the one who pushed kids in school to emulate him. I'm not the one who got a postage stamp of the creep made with a rainbow "USA" in the corner.

You'd do well to denounce Harvey Milk and quick. Marriage puts people in the top tier for adoption qualifications. Emulating a child predator can be problematic if gays want that privilege. Might want to adjust your legal strategy accordingly. It's never too late to come out as a group and denounce Harvey Milk. Or, stand by him and be judge accordingly. Your choice.

Nobody with an ounce of sense is going to "denounce" Harvey Milk. He wasn't a "child predator," the youngest of his romantic partners was sixteen, legal age in many states, and in a more innocent time.

Phil Robertson (today!) wants them at fifteen, and has been defended on religious grounds.

http://freakoutnation.com/2013/12/2...hen-theyre-15-and-16-year-old/comment-page-2/

 

[Flopper]

You are aware that Harvey Milk just had a postage stamp issued with a rainbow "USA" at the top, right Seawytch?

He joints a long list of gays on US stamps such as Josephine Baker, James Baldwin, Samuel Barber, Elizabeth Bishop, Isadora Duncan, Langston Hughes, Frida Kahlo, Edna St. Vincent Millay, Cole Porter, Gertrude “Ma” Rainey, Bessie Smith, Rosetta Tharpe, Andy Warhol, Walt Whitman, and Tennessee Williams.

 

[beagle9]

Hate to be the bearer of news you will find bad...gays can already adopt in most states and could before we started legally marrying each other.

Oh, and the kids are fine, **** you very much.

Don't be grumpy. I'm not the one who made law enshrining a teen sex predator the icon of my social movement. I'm not the one who pushed kids in school to emulate him. I'm not the one who got a postage stamp of the creep made with a rainbow "USA" in the corner.

You'd do well to denounce Harvey Milk and quick. Marriage puts people in the top tier for adoption qualifications. Emulating a child predator can be problematic if gays want that privilege. Might want to adjust your legal strategy accordingly. It's never too late to come out as a group and denounce Harvey Milk. Or, stand by him and be judge accordingly. Your choice.

Nobody with an ounce of sense is going to "denounce" Harvey Milk. He wasn't a "child predator," the youngest of his romantic partners was sixteen, legal age in many states, and in a more innocent time.

Phil Robertson (today!) wants them at fifteen, and has been defended on religious grounds. http://freakoutnation.com/2013/12/2...hen-theyre-15-and-16-year-old/comment-page-2/

Wasn't the Milk guy posing as the young fellers father or something to that affect ? Makes a huge difference if the guy was perpetrating in that way right ? Phil may believe what he believes about marrying between two young people at that age or at those ages (old time beliefs), but it is proven now I think that it doesn't work to well these days to get married that young. Things have changed alot since the days of the Farmers daughter being married off young to the Farmers son, and it also shows how far the young people have fallen in their ability to cope in such a way these days. Marriage is more difficult these days as opposed to what it was back then, and the times in which people live dictate different outcomes for many things, but it still all depends on the two people who want to make a go of it at a younger age.

Personally I think 15 or 16 is to young, because they have to know what is involved in their surroundings and the unstable settings that today brings with it, and they know that young peoples minds aren't as developed as they were back then (had to grow up faster back then). However, Phil may think that in their enviroment in which they live, such an enviroment can still marry off the young without being to much of a problem for them who decide to do such a thing. Remember these people live totally different than what other people live in America do, just like the Amish and others do also or just as well. Phil and the gang are not as far out there as some other groups are, but they are highly popular on that show, and that worries those who hate everything they stand for on that show. That is why they tried to set them up by way of the old timer and his old timey views.

 

[Silhouette]

Wasn't the Milk guy posing as the young fellers father or something to that affect ? Makes a huge difference if the guy was perpetrating in that way right ? Phil may believe what he believes about marrying between two young people at that age or at those ages (old time beliefs), but it is proven now I think that it doesn't work to well these days to get married that young. Things have changed alot since the days of the Farmers daughter being married off young to the Farmers son, and it also shows how far the young people have fallen in their ability to cope in such a way these days. Marriage is more difficult these days as opposed to what it was back then, and the times in which people live dictate different outcomes for many things, but it still all depends on the two people who want to make a go of it at a younger age.

Personally I think 15 or 16 is to young, because they have to know what is involved in their surroundings and the unstable settings that today brings with it, and they know that young peoples minds aren't as developed as they were back then (had to grow up faster back then). However, Phil may think that in their enviroment in which they live, such an enviroment can still marry off the young without being to much of a problem for them who decide to do such a thing. Remember these people live totally different than what other people live in America do, just like the Amish and others do also or just as well. Phil and the gang are not as far out there as some other groups are, but they are highly popular on that show, and that worries those who hate everything they stand for on that show. That is why they tried to set them up by way of the old timer and his old timey views.

Well beagle, the main difference between what LGBT hero Harvey Milk did with his sex partners and what a 15 or 16 year old does with theirs is a little word called "consent". If two teenagers fall in love and get their parents consent to marry, that's one thing. What Harvey Milk did was to openly target homeless teen boys on drugs to sodomize one after the other, as Milk himself aged into his 40s, the age of his victims stayed the same. A committed lifelong marriage between two consenting teens with their parents' permission and blessings is a little different than a temporary buggering session on a mentally unstable, confused minor, addled by drug addiction, by someone twice his age, who entices the boy in under the promise of a guardianship while he sodomizes him.

A minor homeless teen with a drug addiction is legally incapable of consent. Milk used these boys like kleenex and he targeted them for their vulnerability to his nefarious plans for them. The one minor he officated as "father" to, was so messed up in his head and on drugs that he was suicidal. As you know, he committed suicide on Milk's birthday. Another one Milk used in the same way also committed suicide if memory serves. Been awhile since I've read Milk's biography. Maybe you could get a copy of the book and let me know? Seems someone told me the number of teen sex victims of Milk's that killed themselves was 3, but I can't recite that from memory.

 

[Silhouette]

He joints a long list of gays on US stamps such as Josephine Baker, James Baldwin, Samuel Barber, Elizabeth Bishop, Isadora Duncan, Langston Hughes, Frida Kahlo, Edna St. Vincent Millay, Cole Porter, Gertrude “Ma” Rainey, Bessie Smith, Rosetta Tharpe, Andy Warhol, Walt Whitman, and Tennessee Williams.

And yet none of those people are famous for their sexual preferences. Harvey Milk is another story. It is that he was openly gay and held a public office. If you accept that the definition of "gay" is buggering teen boys who were homeless with minds addled on drugs; and thereby legally incapable of consent.

You see none of those names elevated to the status of Harvey Milk's. He is THE GAY who represents the subculture. As a matter of law in California, children are required to celebrate him and his sexuality as such. He is enshrined by law no less, in that state as "the embodiment of the LGBT movement across the nation and the world". Other states have similar forced-celebrations in public schools of Milk's sexual accomplishments, even if they're not yet a law there. Then there's the postage stamp that's like a cherry on top of the lurker-cult sundae...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some heteroes (who are overwhelmingly in the majority of those who abuse children) want to ban homos from marriage because they might abuse children? That's their argument.

 

[Seawytch]

You are aware that Harvey Milk just had a postage stamp issued with a rainbow "USA" at the top, right Seawytch?

Are you aware that they put a slave owner on U.S. Currency?

 

[beagle9]

You are aware that Harvey Milk just had a postage stamp issued with a rainbow "USA" at the top, right Seawytch?

Are you aware that they put a slave owner on U.S. Currency?

Two wrongs don't make not one right... Many mistakes in this nation, but at least there is hope that the nation can correct those mistakes. They have in the past, so we shall see what goes on in the future.

 

[beagle9]

Some heteroes (who are overwhelmingly in the majority of those who abuse children) want to ban homos from marriage because they might abuse children? That's their argument.

Why do you ignore and not face the core of Silhouette's argument on the subject, and why don't you try and address it more rationally, because she has got some great points in her argument (IMHO).

Yes there is abuse against children by hetero couples or people who are hetero-sexual of course, but does that suggest that there can't be a problem with another group or with any other groups as well ?

When people form groups, then they usually expose themselves more to the masses who see them as a formed group who has a culture or a cause in which they live by or go by in the group that is formed around such causes or cultures. They are also exposed more as to their culture that exist within the group, be it of this, and/or of that activity which goes on within a group. Now there are some in groups who don't want to be represented by the more radical elements within the group once they get in and see what it is all about, and they find that they cannot control those elements in which therefore make the whole group look bad, so what do they do ? Some stay in and get branded along with the others who are in the group, and for whom are controlling it as a group or some get out of the group if it seems to radical for them to stay in the group any longer. The main reason for forming groups is for elevating it's power and persuasion usually, so it all depends on the group as is formed, and to what their goals and intent are as a group in which allows them success or either failure as a group in which has formed itself together.

 

[Silhouette]

Are you aware that they put a slave owner on U.S. Currency?

Yes, and I'm also aware that his peers did not emulate him as "best slave owner" or "best slave banger" and make an icon out of him for his slave-owning or his slave-banging behaviors..

The important part is not Harvey Milk the man, it's Harvey Milk, what the man DID. And not just what he did, but that what he did was iconized. Let me repeat that in case it didn't sink in. Harvey Milk's sexual behaviors were iconized, and indeed are defended to this day by LGBT people "across the nation and the world".

What children in California schools are mandated by law to celebrate each year on or around May 22nd, is that Harvey Milk was open about his queer sexuality and held a public office as such. Any child can, if he or she wants to, check out Milk's biography, say, to do a special report on what he is celebrated for. Milk's sexuality, that child will find upon reading his biography, was picking up orphaned teens on drugs off the streets, buggering them one after another as he then discarded them. Two or three of them went on to commit suicide. Any who were drug addicts and homeless were mentally unstable, and therefore legally in capable of consent whether or not they all were minors like the one who Milk officiated as "father" to [while he was sodomizing him], who later killed himself on Milk's birthday..

If Thomas Jefferson was celebrated for his slave owning, a child might on such commemorative day, check out a book that described how Jefferson beat his slaves or starved them, or even cared well for them for all I know. The slavery part though is never a savory aspect is it? So why iconize it?

Why iconize a man who committed felony sex crimes on vulnerable teens? It would be quite a different thing if Milk was known for inventing say a new type of green energy or some new gadget. But alas, no. All Milk did of note was to hold a public office while being open about his queer sexual fetish, and not getting sent to prison for it. That's it. That's what he is celebrated for by LGBTers.

Get the difference? Thomas Jefferson is celebrated not for his sins, but for his noble pursuits. Harvey Milk is celebrated for his sexual atrocities against orphaned teens on drugs. It says quite a lot about those who both celebrate and defend his "legacy" to this day..

[as I note Seawytch has just done again]

 

[Barb]

Hate to be the bearer of news you will find bad...gays can already adopt in most states and could before we started legally marrying each other.

Oh, and the kids are fine, **** you very much.

Don't be grumpy. I'm not the one who made law enshrining a teen sex predator the icon of my social movement. I'm not the one who pushed kids in school to emulate him. I'm not the one who got a postage stamp of the creep made with a rainbow "USA" in the corner.

You'd do well to denounce Harvey Milk and quick. Marriage puts people in the top tier for adoption qualifications. Emulating a child predator can be problematic if gays want that privilege. Might want to adjust your legal strategy accordingly. It's never too late to come out as a group and denounce Harvey Milk. Or, stand by him and be judge accordingly. Your choice.

Nobody with an ounce of sense is going to "denounce" Harvey Milk. He wasn't a "child predator," the youngest of his romantic partners was sixteen, legal age in many states, and in a more innocent time.

Phil Robertson (today!) wants them at fifteen, and has been defended on religious grounds.

http://freakoutnation.com/2013/12/2...hen-theyre-15-and-16-year-old/comment-page-2/

Cat got your tongue, Sil? You lie and extrapolate on your lies post after post. You are vile, and a stain on the word you propose to pronounce. There IS a warning against gossip, and a warning against propagating such gossip in the book you cite.

 

[Silhouette]

Cat got your tongue, Sil? You lie and extrapolate on your lies post after post. You are vile, and a stain on the word you propose to pronounce. There IS a warning against gossip, and a warning against propagating such gossip in the book you cite.

Oh..lol...no. I just forgot about this thread until I checked it just now.

There are no warnings against free speech and discussing Harvey Milk's "penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems". [page 180 of his biography]. Nor is free speech banned when discussing how he sodomized the homeless orphan teen/minor Jack McKinley while officiating as his "father figure". Free speech is also allowed to discuss that that boy grew up to kill himself on Milk's birthday.

Also, free speech is allowed to discuss any other part of Milk's biography. Or will you be burning books next? I assume people can check out his biography in libraries still? It's for sale online, last time I checked.

Free speech also covers discussing people who have elevated Milk to LGBT icon status and who have made a law in California [petri dish for what's to come in your state] requiring kids to celebrate that he was open about his sexuality and held a public office while doing so [without getting prosecuted for it].

Free speech covers all that. It's also allowed to discuss how when a person gets married, they elevate to the top-tier of qualifying to adopt orphans. And also is allowed drawing the conclusion that a person who belongs to a social cult that elevates a sexual predator of orphaned troubled teens, and who apologizes for him and defends his behavior ought not be allowed within a country mile of an adoptable orphan.

Just as you would agree that if a straight cult sprang up around emulating Jerry Sandusky's sexuality, those people should be kept away from adopting kids. Pretty simple stuff. You like equality, right? Free speech? 1st Amendment rights to practice religion and all that good stuff, yes?

 

[Flopper]

Cat got your tongue, Sil? You lie and extrapolate on your lies post after post. You are vile, and a stain on the word you propose to pronounce. There IS a warning against gossip, and a warning against propagating such gossip in the book you cite.

Oh..lol...no. I just forgot about this thread until I checked it just now.

There are no warnings against free speech and discussing Harvey Milk's "penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems". [page 180 of his biography]. Nor is free speech banned when discussing how he sodomized the homeless orphan teen/minor Jack McKinley while officiating as his "father figure". Free speech is also allowed to discuss that that boy grew up to kill himself on Milk's birthday.

Also, free speech is allowed to discuss any other part of Milk's biography. Or will you be burning books next? I assume people can check out his biography in libraries still? It's for sale online, last time I checked.

Free speech also covers discussing people who have elevated Milk to LGBT icon status and who have made a law in California [petri dish for what's to come in your state] requiring kids to celebrate that he was open about his sexuality and held a public office while doing so [without getting prosecuted for it].

Free speech covers all that. It's also allowed to discuss how when a person gets married, they elevate to the top-tier of qualifying to adopt orphans. And also is allowed drawing the conclusion that a person who belongs to a social cult that elevates a sexual predator of orphaned troubled teens, and who apologizes for him and defends his behavior ought not be allowed within a country mile of an adoptable orphan.

Just as you would agree that if a straight cult sprang up around emulating Jerry Sandusky's sexuality, those people should be kept away from adopting kids. Pretty simple stuff. You like equality, right? Free speech? 1st Amendment rights to practice religion and all that good stuff, yes?

Exactly what does Harvey Milk, a gay who died 35 years ago have to do with the Supreme Court decision? So because Harvey Milk allegedly sodomize a teen 40 or 50 years ago, gays should not be allowed to Marry and adopt children today because they just might do what Harvey Milk was accused of doing. Using your logic we have to stop heterosexuals from adopting because some heterosexuals have sodomized children.

 

[Silhouette]

Exactly what does Harvey Milk, a gay who died 35 years ago have to do with the Supreme Court decision? So because Harvey Milk allegedly sodomize a teen 40 or 50 years ago, gays should not be allowed to Marry and adopt children today because they just might do what Harvey Milk was accused of doing. Using your logic we have to stop heterosexuals from adopting because some heterosexuals have sodomized children.

Well, in California, "across the nation and the world", Harvey Milk is enshrined as a matter of law as "the embodiment of the LGBT movement". After trying to force gay marriage on that state against their will, gay activists there made a law forcing children in public schools to CELEBRATE Harvey Milk's "achievements" [buggering orphaned teens openly, while in office, without getting prosecuted].

Follow the logic here. If the LGBT movement is one and the same with Harvey Milk's sexual acme, Milk's sodomizing a minor and many other orphaned teens also, one after the other, we have to see that LGBTs are Ok with that. Which presents a problem if they are trying to access orphans through marriage. Any reasonable person concerned with the welfare of children can see that a man's sexual appetites as such, embodied within an entire social movement, shouldn't be within a country mile of orphaned kids, or having access to being their custodian.

Were you aware that Milk officiated as the "father figure" of that minor boy he was sodomizing? That boy killed himself on Milk's birthday after being discarded by Milk for fresh meat.

That's hardly a sexual-legacy to wrap your movement around. But hey, honesty is the best policy right? At least in the future we can't say, "hey, why didn't they warn us?".

You've seen it here even. Even you are doing it. When reminded of his crimes against vulnerable orphaned teens on drugs, one after the other, instead of denouncing him gays and their apologists line up to defend the indefensible..poo poo it...minimalize it.. You don't minimalize sex crimes against vulnerable people like homeless teens on drugs and with mental problems. Ever.

I'll leave you with that quote again from Milk's biography:

"Harvey Milk always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems". [page 180 The Mayor of Castro Street; The Life and Times of Harvey Milk. "Waifs". Plural.

Now it would be a completely different thing if upon being appraised or reminded of Milk's sex crimes against those incapable of consent, gays lined up to denounce him and cast him off. But that's not what happens, is it? And therein lies the smoking gun...

 

[Flopper]

Exactly what does Harvey Milk, a gay who died 35 years ago have to do with the Supreme Court decision? So because Harvey Milk allegedly sodomize a teen 40 or 50 years ago, gays should not be allowed to Marry and adopt children today because they just might do what Harvey Milk was accused of doing. Using your logic we have to stop heterosexuals from adopting because some heterosexuals have sodomized children.

Well, in California, "across the nation and the world", Harvey Milk is enshrined as a matter of law as "the embodiment of the LGBT movement". After trying to force gay marriage on that state against their will, gay activists there made a law forcing children in public schools to CELEBRATE Harvey Milk's "achievements" [buggering orphaned teens openly, while in office, without getting prosecuted].

Follow the logic here. If the LGBT movement is one and the same with Harvey Milk's sexual acme, Milk's sodomizing a minor and many other orphaned teens also, one after the other, we have to see that LGBTs are Ok with that. Which presents a problem if they are trying to access orphans through marriage. Any reasonable person concerned with the welfare of children can see that a man's sexual appetites as such, embodied within an entire social movement, shouldn't be within a country mile of orphaned kids, or having access to being their custodian.

Were you aware that Milk officiated as the "father figure" of that minor boy he was sodomizing? That boy killed himself on Milk's birthday after being discarded by Milk for fresh meat.

That's hardly a sexual-legacy to wrap your movement around. But hey, honesty is the best policy right? At least in the future we can't say, "hey, why didn't they warn us?".

You've seen it here even. Even you are doing it. When reminded of his crimes against vulnerable orphaned teens on drugs, one after the other, instead of denouncing him gays and their apologists line up to defend the indefensible..poo poo it...minimalize it.. You don't minimalize sex crimes against vulnerable people like homeless teens on drugs and with mental problems. Ever.

I'll leave you with that quote again from Milk's biography:

"Harvey Milk always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems". [page 180 The Mayor of Castro Street; The Life and Times of Harvey Milk. "Waifs". Plural.

Now it would be a completely different thing if upon being appraised or reminded of Milk's sex crimes against those incapable of consent, gays lined up to denounce him and cast him off. But that's not what happens, is it? And therein lies the smoking gun...

You say, "if the LGBT movement is one and the same with Harvey Milk's sexual acme." Most gay and lesbians today weren't even alive when Harvey Milk committed the crimes you accuse him. Was he convicted of these crimes? No. Was he arrested? No. As evidence you quote from a biography. All you really have is anti-gay marriage pundits trying to link a long dead gay politician with gay marriage today.

Jerry Sandusky was a married family man who unlike Harvey Milk, was actually arrested and convicted of sodomized underage, drug-addicted, runaway boys. Using your logic, we should prevent families from adopting children because they might follow in Jerry Sandusky's steps.

There is no more evidence that homosexual parents would sexual abuse their children than heterosexual parents.

 

[Barb]

Cat got your tongue, Sil? You lie and extrapolate on your lies post after post. You are vile, and a stain on the word you propose to pronounce. There IS a warning against gossip, and a warning against propagating such gossip in the book you cite.

Oh..lol...no. I just forgot about this thread until I checked it just now.

There are no warnings against free speech and discussing Harvey Milk's "penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems". [page 180 of his biography]. Nor is free speech banned when discussing how he sodomized the homeless orphan teen/minor Jack McKinley while officiating as his "father figure". Free speech is also allowed to discuss that that boy grew up to kill himself on Milk's birthday.

Also, free speech is allowed to discuss any other part of Milk's biography. Or will you be burning books next? I assume people can check out his biography in libraries still? It's for sale online, last time I checked.

Free speech also covers discussing people who have elevated Milk to LGBT icon status and who have made a law in California [petri dish for what's to come in your state] requiring kids to celebrate that he was open about his sexuality and held a public office while doing so [without getting prosecuted for it].

Free speech covers all that. It's also allowed to discuss how when a person gets married, they elevate to the top-tier of qualifying to adopt orphans. And also is allowed drawing the conclusion that a person who belongs to a social cult that elevates a sexual predator of orphaned troubled teens, and who apologizes for him and defends his behavior ought not be allowed within a country mile of an adoptable orphan.

Just as you would agree that if a straight cult sprang up around emulating Jerry Sandusky's sexuality, those people should be kept away from adopting kids. Pretty simple stuff. You like equality, right? Free speech? 1st Amendment rights to practice religion and all that good stuff, yes?

you forgot something

Nobody with an ounce of sense is going to "denounce" Harvey Milk.

He wasn't a "child predator," the youngest of his romantic partners was sixteen, legal age in many states, and in a more innocent time.

Phil Robertson (today!) wants them at fifteen, and has been defended on religious grounds.

http://freakoutnation.com/2013/12/28...omment-page-2/

Speech has consequences. You say what you will in the hopes that your lies and gossip will become accepted as fact and concern for the children. Others will rightly point and laugh, or register their disgust, as is within their same right to free speech.

 

[Kondor3]

Are ya'll still feeding the Gay Lobby Trolls in here?

Hasn't this damned thing burned itself out yet?

 

[beagle9]

You forgot something....Nobody with an ounce of sense is going to "denounce" Harvey Milk.

He wasn't a "child predator," the youngest of his romantic partners was sixteen, legal age in many states, and in a more innocent time.

A little word is missing here, and that word is "consent", now was there any at all to even speak of, and could one say that drugs being in the system would have imparied the proper decision making just a bit anyways ?

Innocent time eh ? Harvey Milks biography speaks more of an evil man than one who is innocent from a more innocent time wouldn't you say ?

Phil Robertson (today!) wants them at fifteen, and has been defended on religious grounds.

Why are you so disingenuious in your words spoken ? Phil does not want a 15 year old and you know it, (he was talking about young people marrying each other at that age (I disagree with that idealism myself for todays generation), but he draws this from the time when he had married once in the same at a very young age), but you try and smartly word your words like this in order to suggest to the ingnorant such a thing as you try and attack with around here. Shame on you!

Phil figures that his marriage was such a success, in that if others were to find what he had found, then maybe they could enjoy the successes he enjoyed in life with a long and prosperous marriage to the same lovely lady as well.

Speech has consequences. You say what you will in the hopes that your lies and gossip will become accepted as fact and concern for the children. Others will rightly point and laugh, or register their disgust, as is within their same right to free speech.

Speech has consequences eh ? Not according to some in here, but that only applies through cherry picking doesn't it ?

 

[Silhouette]

You say, "if the LGBT movement is one and the same with Harvey Milk's sexual acme." Most gay and lesbians today weren't even alive when Harvey Milk committed the crimes you accuse him. Was he convicted of these crimes? No. Was he arrested? No. As evidence you quote from a biography. All you really have is anti-gay marriage pundits trying to link a long dead gay politician with gay marriage today.

Jerry Sandusky was a married family man who unlike Harvey Milk, was actually arrested and convicted of sodomized underage, drug-addicted, runaway boys. Using your logic, we should prevent families from adopting children because they might follow in Jerry Sandusky's steps.

There is no more evidence that homosexual parents would sexual abuse their children than heterosexual parents.

I never "accused" Milk of crimes. I'm merely reciting from his biography, written by his friend Randy Shilts of the actual crimes he committed. Whether or not he was prosecuted doesn't mean they weren't crimes.

Sodomizing an orphaned minor teen boy on drugs, or many of them, while officiating as that boy's "father figure" is crime on many levels. That boy, Jack McKinley was mentally unstable as well and often was suicidal. He finally killed himself on Milk's birthday. All that are felonies for:

1. Sodomizing a minor.

2. Sodomizing a minor and being over 15 years older than he.

3. Sodomizing someone under the influence of drugs.

4. Sodomizing a mentally unstable person incapable of consent.

The fact that he escaped prosecution is what gays celebrate. He was open about doing 1-4 and got away with it. Does that "getting away with it and later being iconized for it by a social movement" diminish any of those felonies? No, felonies are felonies, prosecuted or not.

If you have a beef with someone about Harvey Milk's felonies being discussed, take it up with the author of The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk. Only you can't, because he died of AIDS long ago.

So, all we are left with is Milk's legacy as depicted by his friend, not by me. And his friend's biography of him tells us of the various felonies that, if anyone committed them today and was open about it, would be in prison.

So then this sex-criminal, LGBTers have chosen as their "civil rights icon". Don't play dumb. We have seen this again and again in the media, as a matter of law and as a matter of legal requirement in California of children there and across other states being forced in schools to celebrate him: speaking of people too young to have remembered him when he actually was alive. They're being reminded of him and forced to celebrate his sexuality in elementary schools and higher schools as iconic of the LGBT movement.

Harvey Milk's LGBT notariety and fame derive directly from his open sexual behavior and that he brazenly held a public office while committing these crimes; and that he didn't get prosecuted for it. That's the part LGBTers are requiring kids to celebrate: his open sexuality with at least one minor orphan on drugs, but many more vulnerable teens as the book documents of his life; and that he didn't get prosecuted for it. The message to kids "see, society approves of this. It's OK now".

And that's so sick and wrong and perverse and a twisted mind-fcuk to do to kids that I don't even know where to start. But that won't prevent me from talking about it.

So, if you or any other gay person doesn't want Harvey Milk to "represent", then just say so. But alas, no, once again, ad nauseum, you are here to defend him and his sexual legacy. That is one and the same as defending a legacy of sex abuse crimes against society's most vulnerable people: orphaned kids.

Pick a new guy to represent or get used to the idea of discussing Harvey Milk's sex crimes against the vulnerable.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JakeStarkey: "Some heteroes (who are overwhelmingly in the majority of those who abuse children) want to ban homos from marriage because they might abuse children? That's their argument."

Beagle9: "Why do you ignore and not face the core of Silhouette's argument on the subject, and why don't you try and address it more rationally, because she has got some great points in her argument (IMHO)."

Beagle, the core of her argument is an irrational hatred of those who are different.

My argument is rational because it points out the hypocrisy of singling out homosexual predators and ignoring the far greater number of heterosexual abusers of children.

If she is saying the one should not marry because they abuse children, then it is even more so for the far larger group that abuses children in far greater numbers.

My logic is impeccably correct.