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

[Silhouette]

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.

Besides Warren Jeffs, I can't think of any hetero outfit that has formed a cult around a child rapist, except of course the gay cult that woships child-rapist Harvey Milk. Even with Jeff's cult followers, they name as his "greatness" other qualities they revere him for and are rather hush hush about his crimes against children. Not so with the LGBT community. What they celebrate in their venerated cult leader is his sexual behavior. That's the core of his accomplishments: that he got away with what he did to orphaned teens, vulnerable, incapable of consent, and was not lambasted, arrested or prosecuted for it. THAT was his victorious claim to fame: being open about it and brazenly getting away with it. Much like brazenly taking away a state's rights to set parameters for people who may marry, by judicial fiat.

When you elevate a child rapist to your "civil rights hero" that's when the trouble begins. When you mandate as a matter of law that children celebrate a child-rapist's sexuality in schools on a commemorative day, that's when you've stepped over the line. When you commemorate a national postage stamp honoring his sexual legacy, you are now beyond the pale. If you speak of in defense of your icon or refuse to denounce him from your lowly level in the cult's ranks, you are part of the problem of child sex abuse. Plain and simple.

Criticism of this cult worship of this man's sexual appetite for orphaned teen boys should be expected when discussions of marriage and gaining access to one of its perks is on the table.

One of the perks of marriage is..*drum roll* ..top-tier access to adopt orphaned kids...

 

[Flopper]

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.

With all that said, you still have not shown that Harvey Milk's supposed crime 40 years ago as reported by a biographer has any bearing on whether gays should be allowed to marry and adopt children today.

Your argument is so full holes it's not worth considering. It's based on guilt by association with a crime that has never been proven.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

With all that said, you still have not shown that Harvey Milk's supposed crime 40 years ago as reported by a biographer has any bearing on whether gays should be allowed to marry and adopt children today.

Your argument is so full holes it's not worth considering. It's based on guilt by association with a crime that has never been proven.

Because they are losing their arguments. Milk is a distraction from failed arguments.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette was correct to link Warren Jeffs with Harvey Milk (if HM indeed was the abuser that Sil claims).

These aberrances are the exceptions to the rule that underline the overwhelmingly decent heterosexual and homosexual marriages that nurture and strengthen the development of children.

Sil has made the case for universal marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

Silhouette was correct to link Warren Jeffs with Harvey Milk (if HM indeed was the abuser that Sil claims).

These aberrances are the exceptions to the rule that underline the overwhelmingly decent heterosexual and homosexual marriages that nurture and strengthen the development of children.

Sil has made the case for universal marriage.

No, actually, they aren't the rule. What is the rule is homosexuals lining up en masse to defend the Harvey Milk name and legacy. What is the exception to that rule is the homosexual who denounces him.

And you know that.

Since we are talking about a socio-sexual cult, essentially, one needs to look at the cult's leadership to discover what the cult's value system revolves around. Sure, there may be one or two individuals of a cult who are resistant to conformity. History teaches us though that gays and lesbians line up lockstep to defend and promote the iconized-sexuality of Harvey Milk' even [and this is most important here] when they've most recently been reminded about the objective reality around what he did to vulnerable orphaned teen boys on drugs.

Sorry Jake. You got it exactly backwards... The exception to the LGBT rule is the one who denounces Harvey Milk's "sexual freedom". Would you like me to cite the law in CA requiring kids to celebrate Milk's open sexuality while holding a public office? I think you know where that link is though.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette was correct to link Warren Jeffs with Harvey Milk (if HM indeed was the abuser that Sil claims).

These aberrances are the exceptions to the rule that underline the overwhelmingly decent heterosexual and homosexual marriages that nurture and strengthen the development of children.

Sil has made the case for universal marriage.

No, actually, they aren't the rule. What is the rule is homosexuals lining up en masse to defend the Harvey Milk name and legacy. What is the exception to that rule is the homosexual who denounces him.

And you know that.

Since we are talking about a socio-sexual cult, essentially, one needs to look at the cult's leadership to discover what the cult's value system revolves around. Sure, there may be one or two individuals of a cult who are resistant to conformity. History teaches us though that gays and lesbians line up lockstep to defend and promote the iconized-sexuality of Harvey Milk' even [and this is most important here] when they've most recently been reminded about the objective reality around what he did to vulnerable orphaned teen boys on drugs.

Sorry Jake. You got it exactly backwards...

You are arguing to the mirror, Sil. You are the exception that proves the rule.

American marriage is good and getting better state by state.

 

[Silhouette]

Silhouette was correct to link Warren Jeffs with Harvey Milk (if HM indeed was the abuser that Sil claims).

These aberrances are the exceptions to the rule that underline the overwhelmingly decent heterosexual and homosexual marriages that nurture and strengthen the development of children.

Sil has made the case for universal marriage.

No, actually, they aren't the rule. What is the rule is homosexuals lining up en masse to defend the Harvey Milk name and legacy. What is the exception to that rule is the homosexual who denounces him.

And you know that.

Since we are talking about a socio-sexual cult, essentially, one needs to look at the cult's leadership to discover what the cult's value system revolves around. Sure, there may be one or two individuals of a cult who are resistant to conformity. History teaches us though that gays and lesbians line up lockstep to defend and promote the iconized-sexuality of Harvey Milk' even [and this is most important here] when they've most recently been reminded about the objective reality around what he did to vulnerable orphaned teen boys on drugs.

Sorry Jake. You got it exactly backwards... The exception to the LGBT rule is the one who denounces Harvey Milk's "sexual freedom". Would you like me to cite the law in CA requiring kids to celebrate Milk's open sexuality while holding a public office? I think you know where that link is though.

Jake, I am not an exception to the rule. See my signature. The rule of law means that if you expect a danger or potential danger coming at children, you are required by law to report that danger.

And so here I am: pointing out that as a group, LGBTers promote a sexual predator of homeless teen boys on drugs as their cult leader. It's unfortunate they chose him. But maybe not in the end. As I said before, honesty is the best policy. You at least cannot fault the LGBT cult for being dishonest about what they really and truly stand up for and pressure their followers to stand up for, each and every one.

 

[beagle9]

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.

With all that said, you still have not shown that Harvey Milk's supposed crime 40 years ago as reported by a biographer has any bearing on whether gays should be allowed to marry and adopt children today.

Your argument is so full holes it's not worth considering. It's based on guilt by association with a crime that has never been proven.

Whose making the associations here ? Is it just her or is it also the LGBT community, in which has created the linking to this guy, otherwise by holding this guy up as one of their icons as she is trying to relay to us in her post ?

 

[Barb]

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 ?

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 ?

Was there? Were there drugs in the system when they had sex? Was Harvey his first partner?

SO many questions his accusers DON'T have answers to, SO many unofficial charges from those who weren't there, and are not officials, all of which which make charges of "child rape" ludicrous. Do you get it yet?

And I don't care if the current poster boy for religious liberty is looking for a 15 year old for himself or advocating the idea (paraphrased: gettin em young, before they learn to steal) to others, he's advocating getting girls at 15, so they can be trained up the way their husbands will want them.

 

[Flopper]

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.

With all that said, you still have not shown that Harvey Milk's supposed crime 40 years ago as reported by a biographer has any bearing on whether gays should be allowed to marry and adopt children today.

Your argument is so full holes it's not worth considering. It's based on guilt by association with a crime that has never been proven.

Because they are losing their arguments. Milk is a distraction from failed arguments.

Hopefully, the anti-gay forces will use this argument in court.
Gays should not be allowed to marry because they may adopt children and sodomize them. Why? Because Harvey Milk was accused of sodomizing a teen 40 years ago and some gays see him as an icon.

 

[Silhouette]

Whose making the associations here ? Is it just her or is it also the LGBT community, in which has created the linking to this guy, otherwise by holding this guy up as one of their icons as she is trying to relay to us in her post ?

Exactly. The association of Harvey Milk's sexual behavior while holding office was made by LGBTs as a matter of law no less. I am merely the one noticing that objective fact and pointing it out.

Likewise, the laws regarding reporting potential harm to children were not made by me; but I am required by those laws to speak out and notify authorities when I see potential danger looming over kids; most particularly adoptable orphans. In this case that danger would be a social cult [LGBT] identifying with and diefying the sexuality of their messiah, Harvey Milk, a man who preyed sexually on orphaned teens as "the embodiment of the LGBT movement across the nation and the world" [as it appears verbatum in law in California] . LGBTs wanting marriage means they are trying to access an institution which has as one of its perks, elevation to top-tier qualifiers to adopt orphaned kids.

There is a conflict of interest there. I did not create the conflict. I am merely here noticing it and pointing it out; as I'm required to do by law.

 

[Barb]

With all that said, you still have not shown that Harvey Milk's supposed crime 40 years ago as reported by a biographer has any bearing on whether gays should be allowed to marry and adopt children today.

Your argument is so full holes it's not worth considering. It's based on guilt by association with a crime that has never been proven.

Because they are losing their arguments. Milk is a distraction from failed arguments.

Hopefully, the anti-gay forces will use this argument in court.
Gays should not be allowed to marry because they may adopt children and sodomize them. Why? Because Harvey Milk was accused of sodomizing a teen 40 years ago and some gays see him as icon.

And not accused by law enforcement, mind, but by internet amazin kreskins.

 

[Silhouette]

And not accused by law enforcement, mind, but by internet amazin kreskins.

A broken law that endangered or harmed children is a broken law that endangered or harmed children. The federal and state statutes that require protection of children as a top priority of law give unusual leeway in merely suspecting a danger to children as a mandate to report it: instead of having proof as is the usual case.

As I said before: it is particularly disturbing that time and again you see gays defending and promoting Harvey Milk by sing-songing that he wasn't prosecuted for the crimes he openly admitted to doing to those boys. Remember, he was ensconced in San Franfreakshow that is spreading its cancerous tendrils all across that poor state and "across the nation and the world". Just because the Bay Area thinks a man shouldn't be prosecuted for his crimes, doesn't mean the rest of the country agrees.

It would be like what happened with Jerry Sandusky. He was allowed continued access to those teen boys because even after someone saw him sodomizing a boy in the showers, they failed to report: which is a prosecutable offense. So as a result, that Sandusky phenomenon was allowed to flourish under wraps as more and more boys became emotionally damaged by his "unprosectued crimes" ...until someone FINALLY blew the whistle on him.

We just don't want to wait that long with the gay marriage/access-via-marriage-to-adopt-orphans situation. The law requires to err on the side of child protection.

 

[Barb]

And not accused by law enforcement, mind, but by internet amazin kreskins.

A broken law that endangered or harmed children is a broken law that endangered or harmed children. The federal and state statutes that require protection of children as a top priority of law give unusual leeway in merely suspecting a danger to children as a mandate to report it: instead of having proof as is the usual case.

As I said before: it is particularly disturbing that time and again you see gays defending and promoting Harvey Milk by sing-songing that he wasn't prosecuted for the crimes he openly admitted to doing to those boys. Remember, he was ensconced in San Franfreakshow that is spreading its cancerous tendrils all across that poor state and "across the nation and the world". Just because the Bay Area thinks a man shouldn't be prosecuted for his crimes, doesn't mean the rest of the country agrees.

It would be like what happened with Jerry Sandusky. He was allowed continued access to those teen boys because even after someone saw him sodomizing a boy in the showers, they failed to report: which is a prosecutable offense. So as a result, that Sandusky phenomenon was allowed to flourish under wraps as more and more boys became emotionally damaged by his "unprosectued crimes" ...until someone FINALLY blew the whistle on him.

We just don't want to wait that long with the gay marriage/access-via-marriage-to-adopt-orphans situation. The law requires to err on the side of child protection.

Milk's youngest partner, PARTNER, SINGULAR, rather than plural, was SIXTEEN.

I can see from years back of postings of yours in multiple forums that this whole thing is a major "thing" for you, For the life of me, "why" is a question is a matter for the "bang head here" poster.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I can see from years back of postings of yours in multiple forums that this whole thing is a major "thing" for you, For the life of me, "why" is a question is a matter for the "bang head here" poster.

"Why" is not really a question. The "why" is obvious. With no argument as to why consenting adults should be treated differently under the law based on orientation (even though technically the deciding factors are gender) some attempt to employ the "Poison the Well" and "Broadbrush" fallacies to deflect the discussion.

The obvious purpose of bringing up Milk it to poison the discussion and pain all (or most) homosexuals with the same brush. A pretty desperate and low validity tactic.

>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

I can see from years back of postings of yours in multiple forums that this whole thing is a major "thing" for you, For the life of me, "why" is a question is a matter for the "bang head here" poster.

"Why" is not really a question. The "why" is obvious. With no argument as to why consenting adults should be treated differently under the law based on orientation (even though technically the deciding factors are gender) some attempt to employ the "Poison the Well" and "Broadbrush" fallacies to deflect the discussion.



The obvious purpose of bringing up Milk it to poison the discussion and pain all (or most) homosexuals with the same brush. A pretty desperate and low validity tactic.



>>>>

Desperate is a very apt description. Dying gasps...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette was correct to link Warren Jeffs with Harvey Milk (if HM indeed was the abuser that Sil claims).

These aberrances are the exceptions to the rule that underline the overwhelmingly decent heterosexual and homosexual marriages that nurture and strengthen the development of children.

Sil has made the case for universal marriage.

No, actually, they aren't the rule. What is the rule is homosexuals lining up en masse to defend the Harvey Milk name and legacy. What is the exception to that rule is the homosexual who denounces him.

And you know that.

Since we are talking about a socio-sexual cult, essentially, one needs to look at the cult's leadership to discover what the cult's value system revolves around. Sure, there may be one or two individuals of a cult who are resistant to conformity. History teaches us though that gays and lesbians line up lockstep to defend and promote the iconized-sexuality of Harvey Milk' even [and this is most important here] when they've most recently been reminded about the objective reality around what he did to vulnerable orphaned teen boys on drugs.

Sorry Jake. You got it exactly backwards... The exception to the LGBT rule is the one who denounces Harvey Milk's "sexual freedom". Would you like me to cite the law in CA requiring kids to celebrate Milk's open sexuality while holding a public office? I think you know where that link is though.

Jake, I am not an exception to the rule. See my signature. The rule of law means that if you expect a danger or potential danger coming at children, you are required by law to report that danger.

And so here I am: pointing out that as a group, LGBTers promote a sexual predator of homeless teen boys on drugs as their cult leader. It's unfortunate they chose him. But maybe not in the end. As I said before, honesty is the best policy. You at least cannot fault the LGBT cult for being dishonest about what they really and truly stand up for and pressure their followers to stand up for, each and every one.

I wrote, "These aberrances are the exceptions to the rule" referring to Milk and Jeffs.

You are the one being dishonest trying to exclude heterosexuals who abuse children in far greater numbers than homosexuals. It simply will not work. You have fail. You will always have fail.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Gay marriage is inevitable. And only religious progressives believe in Government controlling our sex lives as marriage. Marriage is a Government issue for tax reasons only, get rid of the deductions and taxes and there is no reason for Government to be involved in a religious matter.

Marriage is the joining of one male and one female. PERIOD.

 

[Seawytch]

Gay marriage is inevitable. And only religious progressives believe in Government controlling our sex lives as marriage. Marriage is a Government issue for tax reasons only, get rid of the deductions and taxes and there is no reason for Government to be involved in a religious matter.

Marriage is the joining of one male and one female. PERIOD.

Not according to the laws in close to a score of states...and growing rapidly.

Your religion may have a different view but it is of no relevance to the topic.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No, actually, they aren't the rule. What is the rule is homosexuals lining up en masse to defend the Harvey Milk name and legacy. What is the exception to that rule is the homosexual who denounces him.

And you know that.

Since we are talking about a socio-sexual cult, essentially, one needs to look at the cult's leadership to discover what the cult's value system revolves around. Sure, there may be one or two individuals of a cult who are resistant to conformity. History teaches us though that gays and lesbians line up lockstep to defend and promote the iconized-sexuality of Harvey Milk' even [and this is most important here] when they've most recently been reminded about the objective reality around what he did to vulnerable orphaned teen boys on drugs.

Sorry Jake. You got it exactly backwards... The exception to the LGBT rule is the one who denounces Harvey Milk's "sexual freedom". Would you like me to cite the law in CA requiring kids to celebrate Milk's open sexuality while holding a public office? I think you know where that link is though.

Jake, I am not an exception to the rule. See my signature. The rule of law means that if you expect a danger or potential danger coming at children, you are required by law to report that danger.

And so here I am: pointing out that as a group, LGBTers promote a sexual predator of homeless teen boys on drugs as their cult leader. It's unfortunate they chose him. But maybe not in the end. As I said before, honesty is the best policy. You at least cannot fault the LGBT cult for being dishonest about what they really and truly stand up for and pressure their followers to stand up for, each and every one.

I wrote, "These aberrances are the exceptions to the rule" referring to Milk and Jeffs.

You are the one being dishonest trying to exclude heterosexuals who abuse children in far greater numbers than homosexuals. It simply will not work. You have fail. You will always have fail.

Heterosexuals exist by orders of magnitude beyond homosexuals. It follows that 'more examples' of every conceivable behavior would be greater in the significantly larger segment of the population.

What you do not see is an equitable distribution, in fact, far greater percentages of the homosexual community, abusing children sexually, then their hetero cousins.

Reason requires that this is due to homosexuality being by definition, a deviation from the biological standard, established by the natural design of the species. Therefore, the homosexual is axiomatically prone to sexual abnormalities.

It follows that Homosexual men, would be prone to higher desires for younger males, just as hetero sexuals are prone toward higher desires for younger females.

The homosexual however is accustomed to setting aside cultural mores and standards and pursuing sexual gratification, where nature and sound moral standards otherwise discourages such.

And in that is the basis for the argument that homosexuality should be discouraged, in a sound, viable culture.

Please just stand-by for the customary OUTRAGE and discontent by those who will surely come to inform us of the superior nature of the sexually abnormal, as they advocate for the normalization of sexual abnormality.