Post Office Honors Pedophile. Why?

[The Rabbi]

Just because someone dates someone doesnt mean they're having sex. Especially in 1950s Mississippi.

The only difference between the 1950's and now is they weren't open about it.

You haven't seen me, have you? I'm still waiting on something of merit Milk did to deserve a stamp...so far his supporters seem a tad baffled

Several people posted reasons

Do you have proof they were having sex? No, of course not. You invented that.
"Homosexual activist" is nonsense. That isnt a reason to give someone a stamp.

You have no proof that Milk was having sex with a minor- yet that hasn't stopped you from claiming he was.

We know that Elvis was sexually involved with Priscilla when she was 16- because Priscilla said they were.
We can only speculate about Milk and McKinley- because neither of them ever said that they were involved sexually.

We have plenty of proof. His own biography says so. Priscilla says she was a virgin on her wedding night.

It also says he had all kinds of other ways of pleasuring her. A 24 yr old with a 14 yr old and you're defending that.

He was hardly a predator.
But that is deflection from the main topic of what Milk did to deserve a stamp. "Homosexual activist" is a joke.

 

[Syriusly]

It's telling about who defends the perverted Mr Milk

Its telling about who defends the perverted Mr. Presley.

It is telling.
It is also interesting that the SOLE defense thus far of those backing milk is that Elvis also did it. You understand how asinine such a 'defense' is, do you not?

First of all- I do not 'defend' Milk- I defend the truth.

The truth is that there is no evidence that Milk ever broke the law or ever had sex with an underage minor.
The truth is that the Milk stamp was issued over a year ago and the OP only brought it up now because he was gay.
The truth is that what Milk is accused of is exactly what we know Elvis did with Priscilla- and no one- not one of the people 'outraged' about Milk in this thread has done anything other than rationalize why it was okay for Elvis to have sex with a minor.

 

[Coyote]

It's telling about who defends the perverted Mr Milk

Its telling about who defends the perverted Mr. Presley.

It is telling.
It is also interesting that the SOLE defense thus far of those backing milk is that Elvis also did it. You understand how asinine such a 'defense' is, do you not?

Pointing out blatent hypocrisy is not "defending" an action. A lot of people get put on stamps who may or may not have "done something" to merit it. Sometimes that's an individual thing.

The OP decides to make it about Milk's relationship with a 16 yr old....which is not why they are commerating him with a stamp. Ok...so, why the selective outrage then? Here we have another case where a "pedophile" (to use the OP's terminology, however warped) engaged in grooming, molesting and eventually marrying a minor (again - going along with the OP's train of imagery here) and folks seem to be highly invested in making sure we understand that it's somehow different (cause it's hetero?).

Several folks have pointed out legitimate reason's why Milk might be honored.
Several other folks are making it about inappropriate adult-minor relationships.
Those same folks are desperate to defend same relationship with another man also honored by a stamp.
The funniest thing is...when a hetero does it, it's excusable because he married her. A gay man is denied that right.

Same actions. Different reactions.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's telling about who defends the perverted Mr Milk

Its telling about who defends the perverted Mr. Presley.

It is telling.
It is also interesting that the SOLE defense thus far of those backing milk is that Elvis also did it. You understand how asinine such a 'defense' is, do you not?

First of all- I do not 'defend' Milk- I defend the truth.

The truth is that there is no evidence that Milk ever broke the law or ever had sex with an underage minor.
The truth is that the Milk stamp was issued over a year ago and the OP only brought it up now because he was gay.
The truth is that what Milk is accused of is exactly what we know Elvis did with Priscilla- and no one- not one of the people 'outraged' about Milk in this thread has done anything other than rationalize why it was okay for Elvis to have sex with a minor.

The truth is that Milk was known for having sex with underage boys.
The truth is I am not gay
The truth is that Elvis made great contributions to the field of American music while Milk made great contributions to.....? Oh, no one can answer that question. All they can do is drag in Elvis, like he's relevant to this at all.

 

[Coyote]

The only difference between the 1950's and now is they weren't open about it.
Several people posted reasons

Do you have proof they were having sex? No, of course not. You invented that.
"Homosexual activist" is nonsense. That isnt a reason to give someone a stamp.

You have no proof that Milk was having sex with a minor- yet that hasn't stopped you from claiming he was.

We know that Elvis was sexually involved with Priscilla when she was 16- because Priscilla said they were.
We can only speculate about Milk and McKinley- because neither of them ever said that they were involved sexually.

We have plenty of proof. His own biography says so. Priscilla says she was a virgin on her wedding night.

It also says he had all kinds of other ways of pleasuring her. A 24 yr old with a 14 yr old and you're defending that.

He was hardly a predator.

Neither was Milk.

But that is deflection from the main topic of what Milk did to deserve a stamp. "Homosexual activist" is a joke.

Not to the gay community.

 

[Syriusly]

The only difference between the 1950's and now is they weren't open about it.
Several people posted reasons

Do you have proof they were having sex? No, of course not. You invented that.
"Homosexual activist" is nonsense. That isnt a reason to give someone a stamp.

You have no proof that Milk was having sex with a minor- yet that hasn't stopped you from claiming he was.

We know that Elvis was sexually involved with Priscilla when she was 16- because Priscilla said they were.
We can only speculate about Milk and McKinley- because neither of them ever said that they were involved sexually.

We have plenty of proof. His own biography says so. Priscilla says she was a virgin on her wedding night.

It also says he had all kinds of other ways of pleasuring her. A 24 yr old with a 14 yr old and you're defending that.

He was hardly a predator.
But that is deflection from the main topic of what Milk did to deserve a stamp. "Homosexual activist" is a joke.

That is your opinion.

Milk is honored for among other things being the first openly gay elected official in the United States- just as there is a stamp honoring the first African American female pilot in the United States.

Milk is also recognized for fighting for and promoting civil rights- just as Ella Baker was.

You just object to Milk because he was gay- and fighting for civil rights for gays.

List of people on stamps of the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[The Rabbi]

It's telling about who defends the perverted Mr Milk

Its telling about who defends the perverted Mr. Presley.

It is telling.
It is also interesting that the SOLE defense thus far of those backing milk is that Elvis also did it. You understand how asinine such a 'defense' is, do you not?

Pointing out blatent hypocrisy is not "defending" an action. A lot of people get put on stamps who may or may not have "done something" to merit it. Sometimes that's an individual thing.

The OP decides to make it about Milk's relationship with a 16 yr old....which is not why they are commerating him with a stamp. Ok...so, why the selective outrage then? Here we have another case where a "pedophile" (to use the OP's terminology, however warped) engaged in grooming, molesting and eventually marrying a minor (again - going along with the OP's train of imagery here) and folks seem to be highly invested in making sure we understand that it's somehow different (cause it's hetero?).

Several folks have pointed out legitimate reason's why Milk might be honored.
Several other folks are making it about inappropriate adult-minor relationships.
Those same folks are desperate to defend same relationship with another man also honored by a stamp.
The funniest thing is...when a hetero does it, it's excusable because he married her. A gay man is denied that right.

Same actions. Different reactions.

If the PO had put Rock Hudson on a stamp I wouldnt object. Rock Hudson was a great actor with many accomplishments. That he was the first celebrity to die of AIDS is a minor facet of his life.
But we are talking about Harvey Milk, a known molester of underage boys with no other discernible achievment than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[Syriusly]

It's telling about who defends the perverted Mr Milk

Its telling about who defends the perverted Mr. Presley.

It is telling.
It is also interesting that the SOLE defense thus far of those backing milk is that Elvis also did it. You understand how asinine such a 'defense' is, do you not?

First of all- I do not 'defend' Milk- I defend the truth.

The truth is that there is no evidence that Milk ever broke the law or ever had sex with an underage minor.
The truth is that the Milk stamp was issued over a year ago and the OP only brought it up now because he was gay.
The truth is that what Milk is accused of is exactly what we know Elvis did with Priscilla- and no one- not one of the people 'outraged' about Milk in this thread has done anything other than rationalize why it was okay for Elvis to have sex with a minor.

The truth is that Milk was known for having sex with underage boys.
.

See- that just shows how much you are willing to lie to attack homosexuals.

There is no evidence that Milk ever had sex with a minor. There is evidence that Elvis had sex with a minor.

But its okay to you that Elvis had sex with a minor- because he sold lots of records.

And he wasn't gay.

 

[Syriusly]

It's telling about who defends the perverted Mr Milk

Its telling about who defends the perverted Mr. Presley.

It is telling.
It is also interesting that the SOLE defense thus far of those backing milk is that Elvis also did it. You understand how asinine such a 'defense' is, do you not?

Pointing out blatent hypocrisy is not "defending" an action. A lot of people get put on stamps who may or may not have "done something" to merit it. Sometimes that's an individual thing.

The OP decides to make it about Milk's relationship with a 16 yr old....which is not why they are commerating him with a stamp. Ok...so, why the selective outrage then? Here we have another case where a "pedophile" (to use the OP's terminology, however warped) engaged in grooming, molesting and eventually marrying a minor (again - going along with the OP's train of imagery here) and folks seem to be highly invested in making sure we understand that it's somehow different (cause it's hetero?).

Several folks have pointed out legitimate reason's why Milk might be honored.
Several other folks are making it about inappropriate adult-minor relationships.
Those same folks are desperate to defend same relationship with another man also honored by a stamp.
The funniest thing is...when a hetero does it, it's excusable because he married her. A gay man is denied that right.

Same actions. Different reactions.

If the PO had put Rock Hudson on a stamp I wouldnt object. Rock Hudson was a great actor with many accomplishments. That he was the first celebrity to die of AIDS is a minor facet of his life.
But we are talking about Harvey Milk, a known molester of underage boys with no other discernible achievment than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

LOL- you are such a liar.

You would whine about Rock Hudson if he was on a stamp too.

You object to Milk because he was gay and fighting for civil rights for gays.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's telling about who defends the perverted Mr Milk

Its telling about who defends the perverted Mr. Presley.

It is telling.
It is also interesting that the SOLE defense thus far of those backing milk is that Elvis also did it. You understand how asinine such a 'defense' is, do you not?

Pointing out blatent hypocrisy is not "defending" an action. A lot of people get put on stamps who may or may not have "done something" to merit it. Sometimes that's an individual thing.

The OP decides to make it about Milk's relationship with a 16 yr old....which is not why they are commerating him with a stamp. Ok...so, why the selective outrage then? Here we have another case where a "pedophile" (to use the OP's terminology, however warped) engaged in grooming, molesting and eventually marrying a minor (again - going along with the OP's train of imagery here) and folks seem to be highly invested in making sure we understand that it's somehow different (cause it's hetero?).

Several folks have pointed out legitimate reason's why Milk might be honored.
Several other folks are making it about inappropriate adult-minor relationships.
Those same folks are desperate to defend same relationship with another man also honored by a stamp.
The funniest thing is...when a hetero does it, it's excusable because he married her. A gay man is denied that right.

Same actions. Different reactions.

If the PO had put Rock Hudson on a stamp I wouldnt object. Rock Hudson was a great actor with many accomplishments. That he was the first celebrity to die of AIDS is a minor facet of his life.
But we are talking about Harvey Milk, a known molester of underage boys with no other discernible achievment than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

LOL- you are such a liar.

You would whine about Rock Hudson if he was on a stamp too.

You object to Milk because he was gay and fighting for civil rights for gays.

You can only win by putting words in my mouth.

 

[Syriusly]

The only difference between the 1950's and now is they weren't open about it.
Several people posted reasons

Do you have proof they were having sex? No, of course not. You invented that.
"Homosexual activist" is nonsense. That isnt a reason to give someone a stamp.

You have no proof that Milk was having sex with a minor- yet that hasn't stopped you from claiming he was.

We know that Elvis was sexually involved with Priscilla when she was 16- because Priscilla said they were.
We can only speculate about Milk and McKinley- because neither of them ever said that they were involved sexually.

We have plenty of proof. His own biography says so. Priscilla says she was a virgin on her wedding night.

It also says he had all kinds of other ways of pleasuring her. A 24 yr old with a 14 yr old and you're defending that.

He was hardly a predator.
.

Enlighten us- why do you think Milk was a predator but not Elvis?

Is it just because Milk was gay? Or is it because Elvis sold lots of records?

Milk: accused by you of having sex with minors- despite no evidence of any such acts.
Elvis: confirmed by his wife of having sexual relations with her when she was a minor, unmarried, and after he lied to her parents in order to move her into his home.

 

[Syriusly]

Its telling about who defends the perverted Mr. Presley.

It is telling.
It is also interesting that the SOLE defense thus far of those backing milk is that Elvis also did it. You understand how asinine such a 'defense' is, do you not?

Pointing out blatent hypocrisy is not "defending" an action. A lot of people get put on stamps who may or may not have "done something" to merit it. Sometimes that's an individual thing.

The OP decides to make it about Milk's relationship with a 16 yr old....which is not why they are commerating him with a stamp. Ok...so, why the selective outrage then? Here we have another case where a "pedophile" (to use the OP's terminology, however warped) engaged in grooming, molesting and eventually marrying a minor (again - going along with the OP's train of imagery here) and folks seem to be highly invested in making sure we understand that it's somehow different (cause it's hetero?).

Several folks have pointed out legitimate reason's why Milk might be honored.
Several other folks are making it about inappropriate adult-minor relationships.
Those same folks are desperate to defend same relationship with another man also honored by a stamp.
The funniest thing is...when a hetero does it, it's excusable because he married her. A gay man is denied that right.

Same actions. Different reactions.

If the PO had put Rock Hudson on a stamp I wouldnt object. Rock Hudson was a great actor with many accomplishments. That he was the first celebrity to die of AIDS is a minor facet of his life.
But we are talking about Harvey Milk, a known molester of underage boys with no other discernible achievment than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

LOL- you are such a liar.

You would whine about Rock Hudson if he was on a stamp too.

You object to Milk because he was gay and fighting for civil rights for gays.

You can only win by putting words in my mouth.

Your own words condemn you.

You lie about Milk and then you rationalize why it was okay for Elvis to act just like you accuse Milk of acting.

 

[Coyote]

m

It's telling about who defends the perverted Mr Milk

Its telling about who defends the perverted Mr. Presley.

It is telling.
It is also interesting that the SOLE defense thus far of those backing milk is that Elvis also did it. You understand how asinine such a 'defense' is, do you not?

Pointing out blatent hypocrisy is not "defending" an action. A lot of people get put on stamps who may or may not have "done something" to merit it. Sometimes that's an individual thing.

The OP decides to make it about Milk's relationship with a 16 yr old....which is not why they are commerating him with a stamp. Ok...so, why the selective outrage then? Here we have another case where a "pedophile" (to use the OP's terminology, however warped) engaged in grooming, molesting and eventually marrying a minor (again - going along with the OP's train of imagery here) and folks seem to be highly invested in making sure we understand that it's somehow different (cause it's hetero?).

Several folks have pointed out legitimate reason's why Milk might be honored.
Several other folks are making it about inappropriate adult-minor relationships.
Those same folks are desperate to defend same relationship with another man also honored by a stamp.
The funniest thing is...when a hetero does it, it's excusable because he married her. A gay man is denied that right.

Same actions. Different reactions.

If the PO had put Rock Hudson on a stamp I wouldnt object. Rock Hudson was a great actor with many accomplishments. That he was the first celebrity to die of AIDS is a minor facet of his life.
But we are talking about Harvey Milk, a known molester of underage boys with no other discernible achievment than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

He only had one underage relationship. Like with Elvis, who I might add was attracted to young girls. Yet you don't call Elvis a known molester of underage girls.

His achievements were as a political activist for gay rights. Not for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Why is being an actor some how a better achievement? Or a sports hero? It's in the eyes of the beholder clearly.

 

[Syriusly]

Elvis DATED (had sex with) a girl at 14 that he later married. He was uncomfortable around older women according to his biographers. For some reason you are trying to make it out as somehow different.

Just because someone dates someone doesnt mean they're having sex. Especially in 1950s Mississippi.

The only difference between the 1950's and now is they weren't open about it.

and who defends the perverted Mr. Presley

You haven't seen me, have you? I'm still waiting on something of merit Milk did to deserve a stamp...so far his supporters seem a tad baffled

Several people posted reasons

Do you have proof they were having sex? No, of course not. You invented that.
"Homosexual activist" is nonsense. That isnt a reason to give someone a stamp.

You have no proof that Milk was having sex with a minor- yet that hasn't stopped you from claiming he was.

We know that Elvis was sexually involved with Priscilla when she was 16- because Priscilla said they were.
We can only speculate about Milk and McKinley- because neither of them ever said that they were involved sexually.

We have plenty of proof. His own biography says so. Priscilla says she was a virgin on her wedding night.

Once again- his biography never once mentions Milk having sex with a minor.

However- Elvis's biography says he was sexually involved with Priscilla when she was 14 years old.

Elvis Presley s sex secrets exposed Daily Mail Online

Elvis Presley: A Southern Life, by Joel Williamson published by Oxford University Press.

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

m

It's telling about who defends the perverted Mr Milk

Its telling about who defends the perverted Mr. Presley.

It is telling.
It is also interesting that the SOLE defense thus far of those backing milk is that Elvis also did it. You understand how asinine such a 'defense' is, do you not?

Pointing out blatent hypocrisy is not "defending" an action. A lot of people get put on stamps who may or may not have "done something" to merit it. Sometimes that's an individual thing.

The OP decides to make it about Milk's relationship with a 16 yr old....which is not why they are commerating him with a stamp. Ok...so, why the selective outrage then? Here we have another case where a "pedophile" (to use the OP's terminology, however warped) engaged in grooming, molesting and eventually marrying a minor (again - going along with the OP's train of imagery here) and folks seem to be highly invested in making sure we understand that it's somehow different (cause it's hetero?).

Several folks have pointed out legitimate reason's why Milk might be honored.
Several other folks are making it about inappropriate adult-minor relationships.
Those same folks are desperate to defend same relationship with another man also honored by a stamp.
The funniest thing is...when a hetero does it, it's excusable because he married her. A gay man is denied that right.

Same actions. Different reactions.

If the PO had put Rock Hudson on a stamp I wouldnt object. Rock Hudson was a great actor with many accomplishments. That he was the first celebrity to die of AIDS is a minor facet of his life.
But we are talking about Harvey Milk, a known molester of underage boys with no other discernible achievment than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

He only had one underage relationship. Like with Elvis, who I might add was attracted to young girls. Yet you don't call Elvis a known molester of underage girls.

His achievements were as a political activist for gay rights. Not for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Why is being an actor some how a better achievement? Or a sports hero? It's in the eyes of the beholder clearly.

That is incorrect. Milk had many many underage relationships.
Remind me what legislation Milk got passed.

 

[Syriusly]

m

It's telling about who defends the perverted Mr Milk

Its telling about who defends the perverted Mr. Presley.

It is telling.
It is also interesting that the SOLE defense thus far of those backing milk is that Elvis also did it. You understand how asinine such a 'defense' is, do you not?

Pointing out blatent hypocrisy is not "defending" an action. A lot of people get put on stamps who may or may not have "done something" to merit it. Sometimes that's an individual thing.

The OP decides to make it about Milk's relationship with a 16 yr old....which is not why they are commerating him with a stamp. Ok...so, why the selective outrage then? Here we have another case where a "pedophile" (to use the OP's terminology, however warped) engaged in grooming, molesting and eventually marrying a minor (again - going along with the OP's train of imagery here) and folks seem to be highly invested in making sure we understand that it's somehow different (cause it's hetero?).

Several folks have pointed out legitimate reason's why Milk might be honored.
Several other folks are making it about inappropriate adult-minor relationships.
Those same folks are desperate to defend same relationship with another man also honored by a stamp.
The funniest thing is...when a hetero does it, it's excusable because he married her. A gay man is denied that right.

Same actions. Different reactions.

If the PO had put Rock Hudson on a stamp I wouldnt object. Rock Hudson was a great actor with many accomplishments. That he was the first celebrity to die of AIDS is a minor facet of his life.
But we are talking about Harvey Milk, a known molester of underage boys with no other discernible achievment than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

He only had one underage relationship. Like with Elvis, who I might add was attracted to young girls. Yet you don't call Elvis a known molester of underage girls.

His achievements were as a political activist for gay rights. Not for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Why is being an actor some how a better achievement? Or a sports hero? It's in the eyes of the beholder clearly.

How about being on a stamp for being a First Lady?

You know- for the accomplishment of your husband being elected President?

People are put on stamps for all sorts of reasons.

They object to Milk because he was gay- and he was advocating for civil rights for gays.

Not surprising that they would- it is not hard to draw a line from Milk's election and the acceptance of homosexuals in America - and achieving Civil Rights.

When Milk was elected, homosexuals were banned from teaching in some states, and could be arrested for having sex in others. When the homophobes whine now about gays being too uppity and how they have equal rights- well those equal rights were achieved through lots of effort and resistance by the same people who whine about them now.

 

[Syriusly]

m

Its telling about who defends the perverted Mr. Presley.

It is telling.
It is also interesting that the SOLE defense thus far of those backing milk is that Elvis also did it. You understand how asinine such a 'defense' is, do you not?

Pointing out blatent hypocrisy is not "defending" an action. A lot of people get put on stamps who may or may not have "done something" to merit it. Sometimes that's an individual thing.

The OP decides to make it about Milk's relationship with a 16 yr old....which is not why they are commerating him with a stamp. Ok...so, why the selective outrage then? Here we have another case where a "pedophile" (to use the OP's terminology, however warped) engaged in grooming, molesting and eventually marrying a minor (again - going along with the OP's train of imagery here) and folks seem to be highly invested in making sure we understand that it's somehow different (cause it's hetero?).

Several folks have pointed out legitimate reason's why Milk might be honored.
Several other folks are making it about inappropriate adult-minor relationships.
Those same folks are desperate to defend same relationship with another man also honored by a stamp.
The funniest thing is...when a hetero does it, it's excusable because he married her. A gay man is denied that right.

Same actions. Different reactions.

If the PO had put Rock Hudson on a stamp I wouldnt object. Rock Hudson was a great actor with many accomplishments. That he was the first celebrity to die of AIDS is a minor facet of his life.
But we are talking about Harvey Milk, a known molester of underage boys with no other discernible achievment than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

He only had one underage relationship. Like with Elvis, who I might add was attracted to young girls. Yet you don't call Elvis a known molester of underage girls.

His achievements were as a political activist for gay rights. Not for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Why is being an actor some how a better achievement? Or a sports hero? It's in the eyes of the beholder clearly.

That is incorrect. Milk had many many underage relationships.
.

Name them. You keep making that claim- but never back it up.

Provide a quote to show them.

There is more evidence that Elvis has many underage relationships than there is Milk.

 

[Coyote]

m

Its telling about who defends the perverted Mr. Presley.

It is telling.
It is also interesting that the SOLE defense thus far of those backing milk is that Elvis also did it. You understand how asinine such a 'defense' is, do you not?

Pointing out blatent hypocrisy is not "defending" an action. A lot of people get put on stamps who may or may not have "done something" to merit it. Sometimes that's an individual thing.

The OP decides to make it about Milk's relationship with a 16 yr old....which is not why they are commerating him with a stamp. Ok...so, why the selective outrage then? Here we have another case where a "pedophile" (to use the OP's terminology, however warped) engaged in grooming, molesting and eventually marrying a minor (again - going along with the OP's train of imagery here) and folks seem to be highly invested in making sure we understand that it's somehow different (cause it's hetero?).

Several folks have pointed out legitimate reason's why Milk might be honored.
Several other folks are making it about inappropriate adult-minor relationships.
Those same folks are desperate to defend same relationship with another man also honored by a stamp.
The funniest thing is...when a hetero does it, it's excusable because he married her. A gay man is denied that right.

Same actions. Different reactions.

If the PO had put Rock Hudson on a stamp I wouldnt object. Rock Hudson was a great actor with many accomplishments. That he was the first celebrity to die of AIDS is a minor facet of his life.
But we are talking about Harvey Milk, a known molester of underage boys with no other discernible achievment than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

He only had one underage relationship. Like with Elvis, who I might add was attracted to young girls. Yet you don't call Elvis a known molester of underage girls.

His achievements were as a political activist for gay rights. Not for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Why is being an actor some how a better achievement? Or a sports hero? It's in the eyes of the beholder clearly.

That is incorrect. Milk had many many underage relationships.

Link?

Remind me what legislation Milk got passed.

Why?

 

[Syriusly]

m

It is telling.
It is also interesting that the SOLE defense thus far of those backing milk is that Elvis also did it. You understand how asinine such a 'defense' is, do you not?

Pointing out blatent hypocrisy is not "defending" an action. A lot of people get put on stamps who may or may not have "done something" to merit it. Sometimes that's an individual thing.

The OP decides to make it about Milk's relationship with a 16 yr old....which is not why they are commerating him with a stamp. Ok...so, why the selective outrage then? Here we have another case where a "pedophile" (to use the OP's terminology, however warped) engaged in grooming, molesting and eventually marrying a minor (again - going along with the OP's train of imagery here) and folks seem to be highly invested in making sure we understand that it's somehow different (cause it's hetero?).

Several folks have pointed out legitimate reason's why Milk might be honored.
Several other folks are making it about inappropriate adult-minor relationships.
Those same folks are desperate to defend same relationship with another man also honored by a stamp.
The funniest thing is...when a hetero does it, it's excusable because he married her. A gay man is denied that right.

Same actions. Different reactions.

If the PO had put Rock Hudson on a stamp I wouldnt object. Rock Hudson was a great actor with many accomplishments. That he was the first celebrity to die of AIDS is a minor facet of his life.
But we are talking about Harvey Milk, a known molester of underage boys with no other discernible achievment than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

He only had one underage relationship. Like with Elvis, who I might add was attracted to young girls. Yet you don't call Elvis a known molester of underage girls.

His achievements were as a political activist for gay rights. Not for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Why is being an actor some how a better achievement? Or a sports hero? It's in the eyes of the beholder clearly.

That is incorrect. Milk had many many underage relationships.

Remind me what legislation Milk got passed.

Why?

As relevant as asking what legislation Abigail Adams passed.

 

[Coyote]

For the most part, I don't much care who they put on stamps - if it's only applicable to a small group, so what? What's the harm?