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

[Syriusly]

Elvis was of course famous for buggering teens. Just as much as Harvey Milk was.

Elvis had a penchant for 14 year old virgins. In fact Elvis liked to lure them with lies from their parents to his bed.

I notice you use plural terms here. How many Priscilla Presleys were there that he married with permission from her parents after courting her? Vs, say how many young boys Harvey Milk buggered and then threw away for another, and another, and another, and another. Using someone as a sex object is ethically unacceptable. Presley married the girl he loved with her parents' permission.

It reminds me of one account in particular with Harvey Milk where not only did he not seek the permission of the parents of the boy-toys he was after, he even encouraged one to be very deceptive with his parents and to run away with him:

Gerard Dols told of how – as a physically disabled teen – the “very nice” Harvey Milk had encouraged him in 1977 to run away from his Minnesota home and come to San Francisco. Jim Jones Pal and Pedophile to Get Own Postage Stamp FrontPage Magazine

That first night with Elvis, ‘he made love to her in every way short of penetration. It was as if Priscilla’s virginity was another thing that Elvis strangely and sorely needed to maintain’.

She stayed in his bed those six months he was in Germany.

‘He taught her how to make love in various ways short of full intercourse’…and wrote in her book, Elvis and Me, that she begged for the consummation of his love but he refused.

There had been a river of sex before, now there was a flood.
‘He worked his art of foreplay without penetration. In lovemaking, as in entertaining, Elvis’ outstanding talent was oral.’



Read more: Elvis Presley s sex secrets exposed Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Silhouette]

Well the laws of his state should deal with his memory accordingly. I never was a fan of Elvis and now that I know that, even less so.

Which stands in stark contrast to LGBT people who celebrate Harvey Milk's sexuality which was buggering "young waifs (plural, in succession) with substance abuse problems". What you tell me about Elvis disgusts me. I was under the impression he simply paid chaperoned visits to the girl with her parents around (old fashioned courting). So I'll check him off my list of people to admire distantly. He is now repugnant to me. And he was only famous for singing. If he was famous for his sexuality, my repugnance would be doubly so for the people who admire him.

As yours should be for Harvey Milk. But isn't... Nor apparently for this Mr. Bean fellow..

Just today I woke up for some odd reason thinking about David Carradine, the guy who played the lead character on "Kung Fu". And I was thinking about how much I admired the character he played and the whole theme of the show of "East meets West". I thought then about how he died and the memory of the character was killed for me. I thought, "how can I ever even admire the character he played, much less the actor now to die in such a shameful perverse way?".

Not kidding. That's what I was thinking just today earlier. My discovery about Elvis has left the same impression on me.

When LGBT cultees know about what Harvey Milk did to boys, or hearing about this fellow Mr. Bean they defend him/them. That's the key and crucial difference I'm talking about. One of a fundamental moral code that is lacking with regards to children or just perverse sexual obsession in general in the overall LGBT culture.

Next you will defend how David Carradine died. And if you don't, it's only because you will be fighting back the urge to do so so that I won't be "right about you"..

 

[Syriusly]

Well the laws of his state should deal with his memory accordingly. I never was a fan of Elvis and now that I know that, even less so.

Which stands in stark contrast to LGBT people who celebrate Harvey Milk's sexuality which was buggering "young waifs (plural, in succession) with substance abuse problems". ..

Hardly 'stark contrast' when heterosexuals celebrate Elvi's sexuality which was buggering 14 year old virgins(plural, in succession) and introducing them to drugs.

Unlike Harvey Milk, Elvis Presley's home is visited by millions of visitors each year......many of them hoping to see that famous round bed where he buggered minors.

Of course you can't bring yourself to condemn Elvis- nor will you ever care about any man who was sexual with underage girls.

Because unless you can label a child molester 'homosexual' you just don't notice them.

 

[Skylar]

Because unless you can label a child molester 'homosexual' you just don't notice them.

Sounds surprisingly like his argument about 'harming millions of children by allowing them to be raised by only one biological parent. But only when raised in a gay household. If its adoption, or artificial insemination or a mixed family from divorce, etc in a straight household...

....suddenly Silo loses interest. Despite straights 'committing' such an act orders of magnitude more often than gays, with tens of millions of children effected.

It seems child molestation, like harm to children in general....is just another rhetorical horse to ride. If it doesn't allow Silo to bash gays, he could care less.

 

[Silhouette]

Because unless you can label a child molester 'homosexual' you just don't notice them.

Sounds surprisingly like his argument about 'harming millions of children by allowing them to be raised by only one biological parent. But only when raised in a gay household. If its adoption, or artificial insemination or a mixed family from divorce, etc in a straight household...

....suddenly Silo loses interest. Despite straights 'committing' such an act orders of magnitude more often than gays, with tens of millions of children effected.

It seems child molestation, like harm to children in general....is just another rhetorical horse to ride. If it doesn't allow Silo to bash gays, he could care less.

Of note is that both of you are here ostensibly defending a man arrested for sodomizing a 15 year old...lest we lose the theme of the thread in a sea of straw..

In contrast, I'm not defending Presley's name now that I know what he did with Priscilla. The moment you learn something like that, you abandon your icons. Unless you're an LGBT cultee. Then you MAKE them your icon. See the difference?

 

[Syriusly]

Because unless you can label a child molester 'homosexual' you just don't notice them.

Sounds surprisingly like his argument about 'harming millions of children by allowing them to be raised by only one biological parent. But only when raised in a gay household. If its adoption, or artificial insemination or a mixed family from divorce, etc in a straight household...

....suddenly Silo loses interest. Despite straights 'committing' such an act orders of magnitude more often than gays, with tens of millions of children effected.

It seems child molestation, like harm to children in general....is just another rhetorical horse to ride. If it doesn't allow Silo to bash gays, he could care less.

Of note is that both of you are here ostensibly defending a man arrested for sodomizing a 15 year old...?

Oh Silhouette- you lying cow.

Neither of us is defending any child molester.

What we are doing is pointing out what a hypocritical homophobic bigot you are.

I said early on in this thread that if this man is guilty I hope he is convicted and receives the maximum punishment by law.

You are the one going on and on about Harvey Milk because Harvey was a gay rights activist that you despise....because of course you hate gays and do everything you can to attack gays.

Including using the issue of child molestation.

 

[Syriusly]

Because unless you can label a child molester 'homosexual' you just don't notice them.

Sounds surprisingly like his argument about 'harming millions of children by allowing them to be raised by only one biological parent. But only when raised in a gay household. If its adoption, or artificial insemination or a mixed family from divorce, etc in a straight household...

....suddenly Silo loses interest. Despite straights 'committing' such an act orders of magnitude more often than gays, with tens of millions of children effected.

It seems child molestation, like harm to children in general....is just another rhetorical horse to ride. If it doesn't allow Silo to bash gays, he could care less.

Its all part of the pattern- Sil uses any issue that affects her mind like a syphillis infection and abuses the issue to attack homosexuals.

 

[Skylar]

Of note is that both of you are here ostensibly defending a man arrested for sodomizing a 15 year old...lest we lose the theme of the thread in a sea of straw..

Quote me defending Milk. You'll find that you made the whole advocacy up. I'm on record as saying Milk was a dick.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't need to lie like you just did.

In contrast, I'm not defending Presley's name now that I know what he did with Priscilla. The moment you learn something like that, you abandon your icons. Unless you're an LGBT cultee. Then you MAKE them your icon. See the difference?

You refuse to condemn Presley as you condemned Milk...despite them both commiting the same crime per your own estimation. If its the crime that motivates your condemnation, then why do you give Presley a pass? Easy...its not the crime. Its the sexual orientation that motivates you.

Which is why you'll lament about the harm to 'millions of children' of being raised by only one biological parent....but only if the parents are gay. If the parents are straight, you could care less. Despite the fact that almost all children being raised by one biological parent are straight. Almost all of the 'harm' you claim to oppose is being inflicted upon children by straights.

But that doesn't let you bash gays. So you ignore them entirely. You don't give a fiddler's **** about children. If you did, you'd oppose molestation and abuse regardless of the sexual orientation of the person doing it. Yet you starkly refuse to condemn straights for the exact same behavior you'll condemn gays.

That's naked hypocrisy. And it invalidates your argument. As even you don't believe the bullshit you're spewing.

 

[Silhouette]

I said early on in this thread that if this man is guilty I hope he is convicted and receives the maximum punishment by law.

You are the one going on and on about Harvey Milk because Harvey was a gay rights activist that you despise....because of course you hate gays and do everything you can to attack gays.

Including using the issue of child molestation.

Would you consider the testimony of this man's friend, an accredited also gay journalist famous for his dogged adherence to honesty in reporting facts as a good witness to convict Mr. Bean?

Just asking. Because your hero Harvey Milk was "convicted" by just such a witness as to his sex crimes with minors. And as "punishment" your cult put his mug on a postage stamp as representative of the LGBT movement (a movement about sexuality, his being with boys) across the nation and the world."...

 

[Syriusly]

I said early on in this thread that if this man is guilty I hope he is convicted and receives the maximum punishment by law.

You are the one going on and on about Harvey Milk because Harvey was a gay rights activist that you despise....because of course you hate gays and do everything you can to attack gays.

Including using the issue of child molestation.

Would you consider the testimony of this man's friend, an accredited also gay journalist famous for his dogged adherence to honesty in reporting facts as a good witness to convict Mr. Bean?

Just asking. Because your hero Harvey Milk was "convicted" by just such a witness as to his sex crimes with minors. And as "punishment" your cult put his mug on a postage stamp as representative of the LGBT movement (a movement about sexuality, his being with boys) across the nation and the world."...

IF the only 'evidence' against Mr. Bean was the 'evidence' you claim against Harvey Milk, Mr. Bean would be walking.

Let us compare- shall we?

Mr. Bean- arrested
Harvey Milk- never arrested

Mr. Bean- has been accused by an actual person of sex with a minor.
Mr. Milk was never accused of sex with a minor by anyone other than yourself.

Now let us compare him to your hero Elvis Presley, a representative of heterosexual sex( he was a sexual icon known for his being with girls) across the nation and the world.

Unlike Harvey Milk, we have a living witness- Priscilla Presley- who has spoken of their sexual encounters while she was an underage minor.

Why are you so obsessed about Bean and Milk, and ignore Presley?

Because you only post if the abuser can be called a homosexual- and you only pretend to care if the victim can be portrayed as a victim of a homosexual.

Because that is the kind of hypocritical, lying bigot that you are.

 

[Silhouette]

I said early on in this thread that if this man is guilty I hope he is convicted and receives the maximum punishment by law.
You are the one going on and on about Harvey Milk because Harvey was a gay rights activist that you despise....because of course you hate gays and do everything you can to attack gays. Including using the issue of child molestation.

Would you consider the testimony of this man's friend, an accredited also gay journalist famous for his dogged adherence to honesty in reporting facts as a good witness to convict Mr. Bean?

Just asking. Because your hero Harvey Milk was "convicted" by just such a witness as to his sex crimes with minors. And as "punishment" your cult put his mug on a postage stamp as representative of the LGBT movement (a movement about sexuality, his being with boys) across the nation and the world."...

On the last page at the bottom you said that there is no comparison because Harvey Milk wasn't arrested and Terry Bean was. Actually if we had to render it down into potency from purely legal terms, the man most guilty of the crimes alleged is the one where a witness of intense credibility had testified to the crimes he'd witnessed and heard the accused confess to.

That would be one Randy Shilts, an accredited gay journalist and friend of Harvey Milk's known for his dogged slavishness to the truth and reporting uncomfortable facts, even when it cost him friends. Randy Shilts testified in his biography of Milk that Milk was having sex with a 16 year old minor named Jack McKinley and who he transported across state lines while doing so, continuing to sodomize the boy as a minor in California until he turned 18; all while presiding as the boy's 'father figure'. Witness Shilts also testified that Milk "always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems". Rendering that in today's terms, it means that Harvey Milk preyed on homeless boys on drugs for his sexual jollies. Waifs is plural. And Shilts testifies to many, many of the teens known to him that Milk preyed upon. There had to be many more undocumented because witness Shilts testified that Milk was also very promiscious. Milk openly spoke and urged other gay men to be promiscuous. That was a thing witness Shilts had a problem with. Shilts died of AIDS and he saw gay male promiscuity as a great scourge that was killing his friends, and ultimately himself. He and Milk were at loggerheads over shutting down the bath houses. Though, as Shilts testified, Milk liked the public parks too, where he would pick up young waifs from.

To recap, the eyewitness Randy Shilts summed up that Milk liked homeless boys addled on drugs to sodomize. Most of these boys were mentally ill, obviously. So they were three times incapable of legal consent.

So far, no witness I know of has testified against Terry Bean formally. Meanwhile Harvey Milk got a rainbow-logo postage stamp of his leering mug. And you accost Terry Bean as some sort of pariah. Why? What was Terry Bean doing with the 15 year old that was different from what Milk was doing with young Jack Mckinley?

 

[Syriusly]

I said early on in this thread that if this man is guilty I hope he is convicted and receives the maximum punishment by law.
You are the one going on and on about Harvey Milk because Harvey was a gay rights activist that you despise....because of course you hate gays and do everything you can to attack gays. Including using the issue of child molestation.

Would you consider the testimony of this man's friend, an accredited also gay journalist famous for his dogged adherence to honesty in reporting facts as a good witness to convict Mr. Bean?

Just asking. Because your hero Harvey Milk was "convicted" by just such a witness as to his sex crimes with minors. And as "punishment" your cult put his mug on a postage stamp as representative of the LGBT movement (a movement about sexuality, his being with boys) across the nation and the world."...

On the last page at the bottom you said that there is no comparison because Harvey Milk wasn't arrested and Terry Bean was. Actually if we had to render it down into potency from purely legal terms, the man most guilty of the crimes alleged is the one where a witness of intense credibility had testified to the crimes he'd witnessed and heard the accused confess to.

That would be one Randy Shilts, an accredited gay journalist and friend of Harvey Milk's known for his dogged slavishness to the truth and reporting uncomfortable facts, even when it cost him friends. Randy Shilts testified in his biography of Milk that Milk was having sex with a 16 year old minor named Jack McKinley and who he transported across state lines while doing so, continuing to sodomize the boy as a minor in California until he turned 18; all while presiding as the boy's 'father figure'. Witness Shilts also testified that Milk "always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems". Rendering that in today's terms, it means that Harvey Milk preyed on homeless boys on drugs for his sexual jollies. Waifs is plural. And Shilts testifies to many, many of the teens known to him that Milk preyed upon.

You are such a liar. Really it just shows how desperate your bigotry is that you feel a need to lie.

First of all the facts- Bean has been arrested- Milk was never arrested.

Bean has an accuser- Milk was never accused of any crime.

Randy Shilts was a journalist and biographer. He wrote his biography of Harvey Milk after Milk died, and after Jack McKinney died.

IF you read his biography, you would know that Shilts said his biography is based upon interviews with friends- not any interviews with Milk or McKinley.

IF you had read his biography you would know that Shilts never accused Milk of having sex with any underage minor, nor quoted anyone as saying he had.

IF you had read his biography you would know that Shilts never mentions sodomy at all.

IF you had read his biography you would know that Milk never went with McKinley to California- Milk followed McKinley to California when McKinley was 21.

IF you had read his biography you would know that the quote about young waifs was referring to 25 year old Jack Lira- so the person who said Milk preferred 'young waifs' thought 25 year old men were young waifs.

IF Milk had not been assasinnated 30 years ago, and was still alive, Shilt's biography would be no evidence of any legal wrong doing- once again you are letting your bigotry lead you to lie about Milk and the law.

Meanwhile, Bean has a real life accuser- who the police have talked to.

Now if you really want to prosecute a dead sexual icon- Priscilla Presley is still alive and could provide actual testimony that Elvis supplied her with drugs and possibly sodomized her (they did 'everything but intercourse) while she was underage.

 

[Silhouette]

"Shilts was also Harvey Milk’s biographer. In his glowing book “The Mayor of Castro Street,” he wrote of Milk’s “relationship” with the McKinley boy: ” … Sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure. … At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him.”
In a sane world, of course, the only direction his “new lover” should have pulled him was toward San Quentin. But, alas, today’s America – a burgeoning relativist land of make-believe – is anything but sane. " Sexual Predator Honored With U.S. Postage Stamp - Matt Barber - Page 1#!

 

[Syriusly]

"Shilts was also Harvey Milk’s biographer. In his glowing book “The Mayor of Castro Street,” he wrote of Milk’s “relationship” with the McKinley boy: ” … Sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure. … At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him.”
In a sane world, of course, the only direction his “new lover” should have pulled him was toward San Quentin. But, alas, today’s America – a burgeoning relativist land of make-believe – is anything but sane. " Sexual Predator Honored With U.S. Postage Stamp - Matt Barber - Page 1#!

You are such a liar. Really it just shows how desperate your bigotry is that you feel a need to lie.

First of all the facts- Bean has been arrested- Milk was never arrested.

Bean has an accuser- Milk was never accused of any crime.

Randy Shilts was a journalist and biographer. He wrote his biography of Harvey Milk after Milk died, and after Jack McKinney died.

IF you read his biography, you would know that Shilts said his biography is based upon interviews with friends- not any interviews with Milk or McKinley.

IF you had read his biography you would know that Shilts never accused Milk of having sex with any underage minor, nor quoted anyone as saying he had.

IF you had read his biography you would know that Shilts never mentions sodomy at all.

IF you had read his biography you would know that Milk never went with McKinley to California- Milk followed McKinley to California when McKinley was 21.

IF you had read his biography you would know that the quote about young waifs was referring to 25 year old Jack Lira- so the person who said Milk preferred 'young waifs' thought 25 year old men were young waifs.

IF Milk had not been assasinnated 30 years ago, and was still alive, Shilt's biography would be no evidence of any legal wrong doing- once again you are letting your bigotry lead you to lie about Milk and the law.

Meanwhile, Bean has a real life accuser- who the police have talked to.

Now if you really want to prosecute a dead sexual icon- Priscilla Presley is still alive and could provide actual testimony that Elvis supplied her with drugs and possibly sodomized her (they did 'everything but intercourse) while she was underage.

 

[Silhouette]

The biographer of Harvey Milk who wrote he was banging a 16 year old who was a minor at the time while Harvey was playing daddy to him too at the same time was not known for lying. I merely quoted Randy Shilts' own description.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The biographer of Harvey Milk who wrote he was banging a 16 year old who was a minor at the time while Harvey was playing daddy to him too at the same time was not known for lying. I merely quoted Randy Shilts' own description.

^^^^^^ more hate-truth

 

[Syriusly]

The biographer of Harvey Milk who wrote he was banging a 16 year old who was a minor at the time while Harvey was playing daddy to him too at the same time was not known for lying. I merely quoted Randy Shilts' own description.

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.

 

[Silhouette]

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.

 

[Silhouette]

Because unless you can label a child molester 'homosexual' you just don't notice them.

Sounds surprisingly like his argument about 'harming millions of children by allowing them to be raised by only one biological parent. But only when raised in a gay household. If its adoption, or artificial insemination or a mixed family from divorce, etc in a straight household..

I equated gay marriage actually to single parenthood under the question of the benefits of having both blood parents in the home and then failing that at least two parents of complimentary genders so the kids have a well-rounded view of society by extension in their formative years. Adoption of heteros doesn't interfere with that concept. Single parents and gays don't qualify "as married". We incentivize the best conditions for children. As far as the state is concerned, adults in marriage don't even matter outside which combination of them are best for the formative years of children in a married home.

 

[Skylar]

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. And exactly as I said you would, you give the heteros a complete pass. Despite straight couples 'harming' children by your own standards and doing almost all of the adopting. And artificial inseminating. And mixed families from divorce.

Demonstrating in a stroke that either you don't actually believe your own bullshit standard or you're more than content for children to suffer by the millions if they don't serve your purpose of bashing gays.

Just as you give Elvis a pass despite him molesting a 14 year old girl. But condemn Milk for being with a 16 year old boy. Even molestation is nothing but a horse for you to ride. If the molestation of a child doesn't let you bash gay people....you could care less.

Which is quite awful.

And of course, has exactly nothing to do with denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. As the actions of one gay person don't impact the rights of another....anymore than Elvis molesting a 14 year old girl means that you can't be married. Your 'cause' and your 'effect' have nothing to do with each other.

Which, of course, you already know.