LGBT Election "Victory Fund" Fund Founding Member Arrested For Sex With Juvenile

[Silhouette]

Adoption of heteros doesn't interfere with that concept.

Sure it does if you actually believed the bullshit you're peddling. As there are zero parents with a blood connection to the child. And its the lack of the blood connection that you indicate harms children and denies them of their rights....

I made two points with respect to why it's better to have hetero marriage only. One because children do better with both blood parents in the home and 2. Two hetero adoptive parents don't interfere with that "man/woman" definition. Hetero adoptive parents not only don't interfere, they provide the vital role of "next best substitute" without defying the description of who qualifies. And they provide the CRUCIAL complimentary genders for any children growing in that home. A child growing in a home where his or her gender isn't represented will find a vacuum of their place or importance in the adult world. That's how a child's mind thinks: in simple logical deduction by the age of 6 or 7 at the end of their imprinting years.

As with Thomas Lobel, he suffers not from "gender identity disorder". Instead, he suffers from "my gender doesn't matter" disorder...

But back to the topic...

There is no intrinsic difference between Harvey Milk sodomizing a 16 year old minor in New York and then for two more years in California until he was of age to consent (but not mentally because he still was suicidal, also struggling with chronic drug use while his "dad"/Harvey Milk was sodomizing him), and Terry Bean sodomizing a 15 year old minor.

One gets a postage stamp and accolades from the LGBT cult for his sexuality. The other goes to court about it. Either way, either man's acts are a matter of public knowledge now. To choose them as "a sexual icon" means the conversation is no longer about those two men. It's about the people or subculture that chooses to iconize and defend their sexuality...

 

[Skylar]

One because children do better with both blood parents in the home and 2.

You've dramatically revised your argument. As you originally argued that being raised by only one blood parent causes children great harm and deprives them of their rights. I believe you lamented about 'harm to millions of children now and in the future'. Its only after I pointed out that almost all children raised by only one blood parent are straight......that almost all adoptions are done by straights, that almost all fertility treatments are for straights, that almost all mixed families of divorce as straight....

.....that you backpedalled to your existing standard of 'do better'.

You've never factually established that being raised by only one blood parent harms children. You've simply typed the claim. Its clearly a practice which we have no problem with as a society, as demonstrated by all the adoptions, fertility treatments and mixed families of divorce. Making your insistence that gays should be banned from adopting and marrying because of it simply ludicrous.

Two hetero adoptive parents don't interfere with that "man/woman" definition...

...And the provide the CRUCIAL complimentary genders for any children growing in that home

Children of gays and lesbians have been found to be as well developed and mentally healthy as those raised by straights. So your claims of harm are are not only unproven, they're disproven. And of course, utterly irrelevant to the legality of gay marriage. As children aren't a requirement of the validity of any marriage.

But back to the topic...

And what, pray tell, is the difference between Elvis Presley molesting a 14 year old girl and what you're accusing Harvey Milk of? Many straights revere 'The King'. He's been on stamps. His home is a tourist attraction. If some straights can revere a child molester and straights are still be worthy of marriage, why would it be any different with gays?

And are you familiar with the term 'double standard'? If not, you may want to look into it.

 

[Silhouette]

And what, pray tell, is the difference between Elvis Presley molesting a 14 year old girl and what you're accusing Harvey Milk of?
.

One crucial difference: The thing he was admired was his singing and musical talents. Not his sexuality. I don't admire him for what he did even with the girl's parents' permission, even though he married her. Harvey Milk on the other hand is admired for his SEXUALITY even after it was known publicly that he buggered minor Jack Mckinley for years while officiating at the troubled teen's "father figure".

Remember I just said the conversation is no longer about the men but about who is admiring what about them and what that says about the admirers?

 

[Syriusly]

Shilts was not known for lying- you are known for lying about what Shilts said.
You misquote Shilts and misrepresent Shilts.
Shilts never- ever claimed that Milk had sex with a minor.
That is entirely your invention.

The quote came from a website. And it matches dozens of other websites where people have the quote. The best way you have of refuting that quote about Harvey Milk banging the 16 year old boy and acting as his father all at the same time is to tell us which page to turn to in the biography and the paragraph and the sentences to show how the quote is "mistaken" or "wrong".

If you can't do that, then it is YOU who are being dishonest. Which I know you to be fundamentally already.

Shilts said they met in New York when McKinley was 16 and identified the boy as Milk's "lover". At the time in New York, the age of consent was 17. So, without a shadow of a doubt, Milk was banging a minor "street waif" who was on drugs. It's all in the book. Shilts said Harvey had a penchant for young waifs (plural, in succession..again, read the book) with substance abuse problems (on drugs and twice incapable of legal consent).

He's your hero. Look it up.

Like I said

You misquote Shilts and misrepresent Shilts.
Shilts never- ever claimed that Milk had sex with a minor.
That is entirely your invention

Shilts did say that Milk met McKinley in New York and he did refer to him as lover- but he never said they had sex, never mentions sodomy- you invent all of that.

You keep referring to 'young waif's as teenagers, but the only waif ever referenced was 25 year old Jack Lira.

Now once again- lets compare to Elvis and Priscilla.

Elvis met Priscilla when she was 14- and Elvis was in the Army- under Army rules it was illegal for him to have sex with any minor- but according to Priscilla's own words- they were lovers- everything except actual intercourse

He was known for his penchant for young virgins:

Most famously there was his future wife, Priscilla Beaulieu, who was just 14 - ten years his junior - when they met in September 1959. Although sexual from the start, their relationship was portrayed as a sweet and innocent triumph of love across the age divide. In fact, it was just one of Presley's many unsettling liaisons with minors in the years following his rise to fame.

'He was fascinated with the idea of real young teenage girls,' said Lamar Fike, a former member of his entourage. 'It scared the hell out of all of us.'

Read more: The King s troubling obsession Elvis could have any woman. So why was he only able to form relationships with virginal girls Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

He introduced Priscilla to drugs.

Yet.....since Elvis is not a homosexual.....you don't mention him.

Elvis and Milk were contemporaries- both apparently involved with minors- the difference is that no one has ever actually accused Milk of being sexual with a minor- but Priscilla has said specifically that she was sexual with Elvis.

What I am pointing out are your lies- and your hypocrisy.

 

[Syriusly]

And what, pray tell, is the difference between Elvis Presley molesting a 14 year old girl and what you're accusing Harvey Milk of?
.

One crucial difference: The thing he was admired was his singing and musical talents. Not his sexuality.

You keep saying that even though I have quoted extensively showing that Elvis was known for his sexuality- he was a heterosexual sex icon.

Milk was admired for his civil rights activism. He was never a sexual icon.

But since Elvis was not a homosexual- you will focus on Milk- and ignore Elvis.

Because you are a lying hypocritical homophobe.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no intrinsic difference between Harvey Milk sodomizing a 16 year old minor in New York and then for two more years in California until he was of age to consent..

Except for the truth.

Again- show us where the word sodomize- or any synonym of it- is used in Milk's biography. You can't- because you make it up.

Milk met McKinley in New York when McKinley was a 16 year old runaway. They were together off and on in NY from that point on.

Milk joined McKinley in California when McKinley moved to San Francisco for a job in 1968- 4 years after they met.

You just lie. You just make stuff up.

All to attack homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no intrinsic difference between Harvey Milk sodomizing a 16 year old minor in New York and then for two more years in California until he was of age to consent (but not mentally because he still was suicidal, also struggling with chronic drug use while his "dad"/Harvey Milk was sodomizing him), and Terry Bean sodomizing a 15 year old minor...[/QUOTE]

There are significant differences.

Bean is alive and has a living accuser.
Milk is not alive and has never had an accuser.
Bean has been arrested.
Milk was never arrested.

Now we could compare Bean to Elvis- after all Elvis may have been sodomizing Priscilla- and he introduced her to chronic drug use.

Oh wait- you don't care if the person isn't a homosexual.

That is the difference.

 

[Skylar]

And what, pray tell, is the difference between Elvis Presley molesting a 14 year old girl and what you're accusing Harvey Milk of?
.

One crucial difference: The thing he was admired was his singing and musical talents. Not his sexuality.

Actually, its Milk's advocacy for LBGT issues that Milk is admired for by some. So your difference is fallacious.

So why do you give Elvis a pass on molesting a child, straight from the child's mouth. Yet condemn Milk based on the same accusation?

I don't admire him for what he did even with the girl's parents' permission, even though he married her.

Actually, he lied to the child's parents so he could molest her.

 

[Silhouette]

There are significant differences. Bean is alive and has a living accuser. Milk is not alive and has never had an accuser. Bean has been arrested. Milk was never arrested.

When a suspect admits to a crime, he doesn't need an accuser. Harvey Milk was politically connected and lived in San Francisco. He knew Dianne Feinstein. Of course he was never arrested.

That doesn't erase what he admitted to and was documented as having done to the 16 year old Jack Mckinley and other teen "waifs with substance abuse problems". The point isn't even that really. The real point is those who know he admitted to doing those things and who have chosen to iconize his sexuality in spite of that knowing..

That's the real barb in this conversation: Who admires Harvey Milk (LGBTs) and for what reason (his sexuality) and what that reason entailed specifically (sodomizing a boy he was doubling as "dad" to, and other teens on drugs)