Sexual Predator Honored With U.S. Postage Stamp

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2013/10/28/sexual-predator-honored-with-us-postage-stamp-n1732355


Benjamin Franklin famously quipped, “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”

Franklin evidently failed to envisage today’s postmodern left. For the conservative, there exists at least one other certainty, and it is this: The degree to which “progressives” attack you corresponds precisely to the degree with which you challenge any among their assorted, distorted and sordid sacred cows.

What would you call a 33-year-old man who both had and axiomatically acted upon a deviant sexual appetite for underage, drug-addicted, runaway boys? (No, not Jerry Sandusky.)

What would you call a man of whom, as regards sexual preference, his own friend and biographer confessed, “Harvey always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems”?

In a recent interview with OneNewsNow.com, I called this man “demonstrably, categorically an evil man based on his [statutory] rape of teenage boys.”

But you can call him Harvey Milk.

Harvey Milk’s only claim to fame is that he was the first openly homosexual candidate to be elected to public office (San Francisco city commissioner). His chief cause was to do away with the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. In 1978 Milk was murdered over a non-related political dispute by fellow Democrat Dan White.

And a “progressive” martyr was born.

Merriam Webster defines “pederast” as “one who practices anal intercourse especially with a boy.” It defines “statutory rape” as “the crime of having sex with someone who is younger than an age that is specified by law.”

Harvey Milk was both a pederast and, by extension, a statutory rapist. After I publicly addressed this objective reality in the above-mentioned interview, the liberal blogosphere reacted in, shall we say, an informatively defensive manner.

A Huffington Post headline screamed: “Harvey Milk Was An ‘Evil Man’ Who Raped Teenage Boys, Unworthy of Postage Stamp: Matt Barber.”

The always-amusing Right Wing Watch blog breathlessly posted my comments with the header: “Barber: ‘Harvey Milk Was Demonstrably, Categorically an Evil Man.’”

And so on.

Here’s what’s especially telling about their reaction. Not one of the dozen-or-more publications that reported on my comments even challenged their veracity. Not one attempted to refute or deny that Harvey Milk was, in fact, a pederast and a sexual predator.

That’s because they can’t.

One of Milk’s victims was a 16-year-old runaway from Maryland named Jack Galen McKinley. As previously mentioned, Milk had a soft spot in his, um, heart for teenage runaways. Motivated by an apparent quid pro quo of prurience, Milk plucked McKinley from the street.

Randy Shilts was a San Francisco Chronicle reporter and close friend to Harvey Milk. Though Shilts died of AIDS in 1994, he remains, even today, one of the most beloved journalists in the “LGBT” community.

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.

Randy Thomasson, child advocate and founder of SaveCalifornia.com, is one of the nation’s foremost experts on Harvey Milk. Of the Shilts biography, Thomasson notes, “Explaining Milk’s many flings and affairs with teenagers and young men, Randy Shilts writes how Milk told one ‘lover’ why it was OK for him to also have multiple relationships simultaneously: ‘As homosexuals, we can’t depend on the heterosexual model. … We grow up with the heterosexual model, but we don’t have to follow it. We should be developing our own lifestyle. There’s no reason why you can’t love more than one person at a time.’”

Whereas McKinley, a disturbed runaway boy, desperately sought a “father figure” to provide empathy, compassion, wisdom and direction, he instead found Harvey Milk: a promiscuous sexual predator who found, in McKinley, an opportunity to satisfy a perverse lust for underage flesh.

Years later McKinley committed suicide.

Another teen who crossed paths with Harvey Milk was Christian convert and former homosexual Gerard Dols. In a 2008 radio interview with Concerned Women for America, Dols shared 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.

According to Dols, Milk told him, “Don’t tell your parents,” and later sent him a letter with instructions. Thankfully, the letter was intercepted by Dols’ parents who then filed a complaint with the Minnesota attorney general’s office.

The incident was evidently swept under the rug.

So what does a man like Harvey Milk get for his apparent crimes? While most sexual predators get time in prison and a dishonorable mention on the registry of sex offenders, Harvey Milk got his own California state holiday (“Harvey Milk Day”) and, more recently, his own commemorative postage stamp, awarded by the Obama administration’s USPS.

God bless America?

As troubling as the postage stamp may be, to me – the father of a soon-to-be-teenage boy – the specter of having a “Harvey Milk Day” forced upon millions of California children, parents and educators is even more troubling. Especially in light of Milk’s own sordid history with minors.

Even so, and quite obviously, not everyone agrees. Some have said that my reality-based assessment of Harvey Milk is “uncivil.” Our historical revisionist friends on the left tend to get a bit snooty when you publicly deconstruct one of their meticulously fabricated mythical martyrs.

I find that odd.

To me, even the mere notion of elevating, to hero status, a man who statutorily raped teenage boys, is what’s uncivil.

[Danke]

Just think if it was females that age a male engaged with, no postage stamp for you!

[dannno]

It doesn't sound like he raped anybody.

There are so many places in the world where 16 is the age of consent, some have it even lower.

Just because it was against the law where he was at the time doesn't mean anything except that he could have been punished under the law.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Serial Killers Honored with U.S. Postage Stamp:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidents_on_U.S._postage_stamps

[Danke]

It doesn't sound like he raped anybody.

A 33 year old man with someone younger than 18 is considered rape.

[dannno]

A 33 year old man with someone younger than 18 is considered rape.

By who?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

By who?

The law in California.

[dannno]

The law in California.

Like I give a fuck about a law in California?

[NIU Students for Liberty]

A 33 year old man with someone younger than 18 is considered rape.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxullP0DaNg

[dannno]

If the law in California said that blue was purple that doesn't mean blue is purple, it just means California has a stupid law.

[Christian Liberty]

Even if we give the benefit of the doubt and assume it wasn't really "rape", why is this guy worthy of any kind of honor? He probably committed worse crimes in office anyway.

[dannno]

Even if we give the benefit of the doubt and assume it wasn't really "rape", why is this guy worthy of any kind of honor?

Meh, if gay people want to celebrate the first openly gay elected representative or whatever then I say go for it.

As far as if he deserves to be on a stamp, I really don't care, but they should probably give people options if they are going to have photos on there.

[Origanalist]

Another teen who crossed paths with Harvey Milk was Christian convert and former homosexual Gerard Dols. In a 2008 radio interview with Concerned Women for America, Dols shared 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.

According to Dols, Milk told him, “Don’t tell your parents,” and later sent him a letter with instructions. Thankfully, the letter was intercepted by Dols’ parents who then filed a complaint with the Minnesota attorney general’s office.

Well of course this is the kind of person this country should be honoring.

[green73]

Damn, I really thought this was going to be about Ben Franklin. :(

[dannno]

Well of course this is the kind of person this country should be honoring.

A runaway from Minnesota? Moorhead, MI by any chance?

Why did the teen want to run away in the first place?

Sorry if I don't automatically assume the worst of people.

[dannno]

The law in California.

Let's see, a runaway male 16 year old from Minnesota can't be with a 33 year old consensually by law, yet Bunny Lebowski as an 18 year old runaway from Minnesota can legally marry an 80 year old Korean War vet?

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Let's see, a runaway male 16 year old from Minnesota can't be with a 33 year old consensually by law, yet Bunny Lebowski as an 18 year old runaway from Minnesota can legally marry an 80 year old Korean War vet?

Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.

[CPUd]

I like the other Sean Penn politician-who-got-shot film better:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI6CtLK7Evs

[Origanalist]

A runaway from Minnesota? Moorhead, MI by any chance?

Why did the teen want to run away in the first place?

Sorry if I don't automatically assume the worst of people.


Another teen who crossed paths with Harvey Milk was Christian convert and former homosexual Gerard Dols. In a 2008 radio interview with Concerned Women for America, Dols shared 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.

According to Dols, Milk told him, “Don’t tell your parents,” and later sent him a letter with instructions. Thankfully, the letter was intercepted by Dols’ parents who then filed a complaint with the Minnesota attorney general’s office.

The incident was evidently swept under the rug.

The term is sexual predator. They do exist, despite all your protests.

[dannno]

The term is sexual predator. They do exist, despite all your protests.

Is every male who goes to a bar and wants to have sex with a woman a sexual predator?

[Origanalist]

Is every male who goes to a bar and wants to have sex with a woman a sexual predator?

What the hell are you talking about? Try to focus on the subject at hand.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Is every male who goes to a bar and wants to have sex with a woman a sexual predator?

How many under-18 minors are hanging out in bars?


Like I give a fuck about a law in California?

Oh, I'm sure you do. I bet you wouldn't openly flaunt committing statutory rape. So that would mean you do, in fact, give a f*ck.

[dannno]

The term is sexual predator. They do exist, despite all your protests.

Although there is one other option I will outline in a moment, a sexual predator is somebody who forces somebody to have sex, or has sex with a child who is unable to comprehend what is happening. By the time you are 16, most have been sexually active in their minds or otherwise for at least 3 years. They comprehend what is happening. So to be a sexual predator of a 16 year old you would either have to force them to have sex or put them in an extremely vulnerable position on purpose for the express purpose of having sex with them. This isn't, or shouldn't really be illegal, although if they are underage like this kid was then a case could be made.. and it could potentially be judged as immoral and an act of sexual predation. So this COULD have been what this guy was attempting, and I assume that is why you are protesting, but I still don't know that for a fact as I've not yet heard the whole story and I don't know the guy personally.

I wasn't around back in the 60s and 70s but I always get the feeling that a lot of the people in more progressive urban areas thought some big cultural change or revolution was in the process of happening, which it was, but you still had all of these people stuck in the suburbs who were still stuck in the 50s.. So I see what a lot of these people were doing was recruiting to get more kids who were unhappy with their 'square' and 'conforming' lifestyles to come out to California and be apart of it. If they were in their 20s and hadn't gone on their own yet then they probably weren't interested so they recruited younger kids as well. Not everybody sees sex as some evil horrible thing, especially back then before the AIDS epidemic. It was seen as something positive and beautiful. I still see it that way despite the AIDS epidemic, so naturally I will have different views on some of these types of situations than many others who view sex outside marriage as some sort of evil sin. So while there may have been some other motivations to get this physically disabled kid out there, there may have also been some other motivations like he actually thought the kid would have a better life out in California. I would still need a lot more information.

[dannno]

How many under-18 minors are hanging out in bars?

That doesn't apply to my argument. If a 16 year old can have consensual sex with another 16 year old, I see no logical reason why they can't have sex with a 25 year old if they want to. I won't continue to bring up that argument as the age goes much below 16 because you start getting close to that gray area where some kids that age are not sexually mature enough to understand it yet.




Oh, I'm sure you do. I bet you wouldn't openly flaunt committing statutory rape. So that would mean you do, in fact, give a f*ck.

Hypothetically correct, but I also smoked weed illegally before I got my prescription and while I gave a fuck about not getting arrested, weed being illegal did not at all play into the decision whether I would smoke it or not, or whether it was 'good' or 'bad'.

[green73]

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/14sntcy.gif

[dannno]

What the hell are you talking about? Try to focus on the subject at hand.

I don't think a 33 year old attempting to have consensual sex with a 16 year old is necessarily a 'predator'.

The fact that one of these kids he was trying to get to come out was disabled plays in your favor, and I admit it is possible that he was.. but it's still just one small piece of information and doesn't tell the whole story.

Are there any cases where this guy had non-consensual sex, or drugged somebody to have sex with them? Or had sex with somebody under 16?

[Origanalist]

Although there is one other option I will outline in a moment, a sexual predator is somebody who forces somebody to have sex, or has sex with a child who is unable to comprehend what is happening. By the time you are 16, most have been sexually active in their minds or otherwise for at least 3 years. They comprehend what is happening. So to be a sexual predator of a 16 year old you would either have to force them to have sex or put them in an extremely vulnerable position on purpose for the express purpose of having sex with them. This isn't, or shouldn't really be illegal but it could potentially be judged as immoral and an act of sexual predation. So this COULD have been what this guy was attempting, and I assume that is why you are protesting, but I still don't know that for a fact as I've not yet heard the whole story and I don't know the guy personally.

I wasn't around back in the 60s and 70s but I always get the feeling that a lot of the people in more progressive urban areas thought some big cultural change or revolution was in the process of happening, which it was, but you still had all of these people stuck in the suburbs who were still stuck in the 50s.. So I see what a lot of these people were doing was recruiting to get more kids who were unhappy with their 'square' and 'conforming' lifestyles to come out to California and be apart of it. If they were in their 20s and hadn't gone on their own yet then they probably weren't interested so they recruited younger kids as well. Not everybody sees sex as some evil horrible thing, especially back then before the AIDS epidemic. It was seen as something positive and beautiful. I still see it that way despite the AIDS epidemic, so naturally I will have different views on some of these types of situations than many others who view sex outside marriage as some sort of evil sin. So while there may have been some other motivations to get this physically disabled kid out there, there may have also been some other motivations like he actually thought the kid would have a better life out in California. I would still need a lot more information.

dannno, thanks for making some sense. I was around in the 60's and 70's. And obviously there was a huge cultural shift going on. And yes there were predators taking advantage of it, I had a few run ins with them myself growing up. But that is hardly a new thing. The point about this guy is he repeatedly went after vulnerable young men, living on the street etc. It was a easily identified pattern.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I thought everybody was on a stamp these days.

[PaulConventionWV]

It doesn't sound like he raped anybody.

There are so many places in the world where 16 is the age of consent, some have it even lower.

Just because it was against the law where he was at the time doesn't mean anything except that he could have been punished under the law.

The point, I think, is that he wasn't punished under the law like mundanes who do that.

Also, Danke makes a good point. What if they were girls?

[A Son of Liberty]

Pfft... big whoop. War criminals get bloody great marble monuments in the fashion of legendary gods built to them in Washington D.C.

Stamps are amateur hour.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

... yet Bunny Lebowski as an 18 year old runaway from Minnesota can legally marry an 80 year old Korean War vet?

Wasn't that in a movie? Either way--that's awesome.

[PaulConventionWV]

Meh, if gay people want to celebrate the first openly gay elected representative or whatever then I say go for it.

As far as if he deserves to be on a stamp, I really don't care, but they should probably give people options if they are going to have photos on there.

This "celebration" of the first openly gay elected representative affects everyone. It's not just gay people celebrating. Everyone celebrates this by default just because public officials chose to make it part of the hallmark of their population, even though the population doesn't agree. What happened to celebrating privately? This tactic is nothing more than propaganda. These people are honored because some people want them and people like them to be seen as honorable.

When the football team wins a game, their trophy doesn't get displayed in the opposing school's trophy cabinet. "Public" life is a joke and people need to stop being honored on behalf of everyone just because some people want them to be honored.

[PaulConventionWV]

Pfft... big whoop. War criminals get bloody great marble monuments in the fashion of legendary gods built to them in Washington D.C.

Stamps are amateur hour.

Same principle. It's the principle that needs to be argued for after all. Whenever you see the public honoring someone, you can be assured there is a reason they are being honored. It's because somebody wanted that person to serve as a role model for the general population.

[Christian Liberty]

Let's see, a runaway male 16 year old from Minnesota can't be with a 33 year old consensually by law, yet Bunny Lebowski as an 18 year old runaway from Minnesota can legally marry an 80 year old Korean War vet?

Even ignoring the fact that homosexuals are sexual perverts by definition, any 33 or 80 year old that wants to be with a teenager is a sexual pervert.

Not saying either one is "rape" but I don't see anything worth honoring about it. At best, California is honoring grievous sin that should be legal. It still shouldn't be honored.

Then again, I guess its no worse than honoring the military or the police.

Americans are stupid.

[Slutter McGee]

Screw everybody. Screw the Dems who want to ignore these actions because a guy happens to share much of their political views. Screw the Republicans who want to demonize an entire class of people and imply that gay rights mean nothing because this guy liked underage boys. Screw the government who decided what underage means. Screw libertarians who think a grown adult can not take advantage of somebody who is underage.

Yeah, I become more of a cynic every day.

Slutter McGee

[Slutter McGee]

Even ignoring the fact that homosexuals are sexual perverts by definition.

Wow freedomfanatic has something incredibly stupid to say. I am so surprised.

Slutter McGee

[Christian Liberty]

Pfft... big whoop. War criminals get bloody great marble monuments in the fashion of legendary gods built to them in Washington D.C.

Stamps are amateur hour.

I'm no fan of honoring the wicked, whether they be murderers or perverts.



The point, I think, is that he wasn't punished under the law like mundanes who do that.

Also, Danke makes a good point. What if they were girls?




Nobody'd be honoring them, that's for sure. For me, the only difference would be that we'd be honoring a semi-pedophile who isn't a homosexual rather than one who is. One form of perversion instead of two. So what?

[Christian Liberty]

Screw everybody. Screw the Dems who want to ignore these actions because a guy happens to share much of their political views. Screw the Republicans who want to demonize an entire class of people and imply that gay rights mean nothing because this guy liked underage boys. Screw the government who decided what underage means. Screw libertarians who think a grown adult can not take advantage of somebody who is underage.

Yeah, I become more of a cynic every day.

Slutter McGee



Wow freedomfanatic has something incredibly stupid to say. I am so surprised.

Slutter McGee

For the record, my reasons for thinking homosexuality is perverted have nothing to do with the fact that this particular guy did this particular thing. I am also in no way denying their right to do as they see fit, although "gay rights" means so many things these days, some good, some bad.

[Slutter McGee]

For the record, my reasons for thinking homosexuality is perverted have nothing to do with the fact that this particular guy did this particular thing. I am also in no way denying their right to do as they see fit, although "gay rights" means so many things these days, some good, some bad.

I am all for no state recognition of marriage, straight or gay. So you are right, sometimes "gay rights" means different things. But I do believe that if the government recognizes straight marriage, they should recognize gay marriage...and there are benefits that do come with marriage.

Slutter McGee

[Christian Liberty]

I am all for no state recognition of marriage, straight or gay. So you are right, sometimes "gay rights" means different things. But I do believe that if the government recognizes straight marriage, they should recognize gay marriage...and there are benefits that do come with marriage.

Slutter McGee

I agree with you on no state-recognition. If there's going to be any recognition at all (which there shouldn't be) I believe the states should decide and not the Federal government. So, if Massachusettes wants to "legalize" (really codeword for "recognize") gay marriage, and South Carolina doesn't want to, that's fine with me.

Personally, at the state level? I wouldn't vote for "gay marriage" but I wouldn't vote for constitutional amendments that make "gay marriage" illegal either. But ultimately, I think this is just an issue that is used to divide where it shouldn't be. I believe homosexual contact is seriously immoral, but I respect their rights to do what they want. As long as no force is involved, no force should be used to prevent it There are also way more important issues at hand for any reasonable person, including war, the Fed, crippling tax rates (Funny that so many of those [not accusing you here, just to be clear] who say gay couples "deserve" tax cuts also want to raise taxes on everybody, homosexual or not) the war on drugs where people are actually being IMPRISONED for their personal choices, etc.

[Slutter McGee]

I agree with you on no state-recognition. If there's going to be any recognition at all (which there shouldn't be) I believe the states should decide and not the Federal government. So, if Massachusettes wants to "legalize" (really codeword for "recognize") gay marriage, and South Carolina doesn't want to, that's fine with me.

Personally, at the state level? I wouldn't vote for "gay marriage" but I wouldn't vote for constitutional amendments that make "gay marriage" illegal either. But ultimately, I think this is just an issue that is used to divide where it shouldn't be. I believe homosexual contact is seriously immoral, but I respect their rights to do what they want. As long as no force is involved, no force should be used to prevent it There are also way more important issues at hand for any reasonable person, including war, the Fed, crippling tax rates (Funny that so many of those [not accusing you here, just to be clear] who say gay couples "deserve" tax cuts also want to raise taxes on everybody, homosexual or not) the war on drugs where people are actually being IMPRISONED for their personal choices, etc.

Wow, me and FF here agree completely outside of our vote regarding a state election and the immorality of homosexuality. well said. I just think I have a problem with your opinion that all gays are perverts. Doesn't matter in the long run. And this is why a federalist position can unite people like me and people like FF. It is also why we should support this position and get it out of the Federal Governments hands.

Slutter McGee

[FindLiberty]

Yetch! Who's gonna' be honored next? ...mercifully, postage stamps are all "peel and stick" these days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association

[Christian Liberty]

Wow, me and FF here agree completely outside of our vote regarding a state election and the immorality of homosexuality. well said. I just think I have a problem with your opinion that all gays are perverts. Doesn't matter in the long run. And this is why a federalist position can unite people like me and people like FF. It is also why we should support this position and get it out of the Federal Governments hands.

Slutter McGee

It's cool and no worries. And to be clear, I'm NOT saying all perverts are equally perverted either. I think homosexuality is always disordered and immoral, but obviously its not on the same scale as, say, pedophilia.

+rep.

[KurtBoyer25L]

It's cool and no worries. And to be clear, I'm NOT saying all perverts are equally perverted either. I think homosexuality is always disordered and immoral, but obviously its not on the same scale as, say, pedophilia.

+rep.

Considering the state of sexuality among normals in America, a "pervert" or a "deviant" is probably the best compliment you can give to someone. I applaud the post office for being open-minded enough to see, just this once, past the "a blank year old X with a blank year old Y" witch-huntery.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05njPSdMRzE

[Christian Liberty]

Considering the state of sexuality among normals in America, a "pervert" or a "deviant" is probably the best compliment you can give to someone. I applaud the post office for being open-minded enough to see, just this once, past the "a blank year old X with a blank year old Y" witch-huntery.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05njPSdMRzE

:rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, if this was consensual, it was not "rape" and very well possibly should be legal ("Age of consent" is something I'm still a little shaky on, I expect a stateless society would come up with a reasonable solution, and until then I'm shooting blind) but I don't see why the heck it should be CELEBRATED.

[Origanalist]

Screw everybody. Screw the Dems who want to ignore these actions because a guy happens to share much of their political views. Screw the Republicans who want to demonize an entire class of people and imply that gay rights mean nothing because this guy liked underage boys. Screw the government who decided what underage means. Screw libertarians who think a grown adult can not take advantage of somebody who is underage.

Yeah, I become more of a cynic every day.

Slutter McGee

Well knock me over with a feather, + rep.

[Origanalist]

Considering the state of sexuality among normals in America, a "pervert" or a "deviant" is probably the best compliment you can give to someone. I applaud the post office for being open-minded enough to see, just this once, past the "a blank year old X with a blank year old Y" witch-huntery.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05njPSdMRzE

Whoo hooo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3GwjfUFyY6M

[Danke]

Like I give a fuck about a law in California?

I don't know. Can a 30 year old have sex with a 10 year old?

So what is your cut off point? And why is that any better than the state's cut off point?

[Danke]

Well knock me over with a feather, + rep.

-rep for giving McGee a +rep.

[Snew]

Serial Killers Honored with U.S. Postage Stamp:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidents_on_U.S._postage_stamps

winner.

[Origanalist]

-rep for giving McGee a +rep.

Ya well, positive reinforcement and all that.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't know. Can a 30 year old have sex with a 10 year old?

So what is your cut off point? And why is that any better than the state's cut off point?

This is a continuum issue, and exactly why I really don't engage this topic much. Should an 18 year old who sleeps with a 17 year old be criminally charged? Of course not. An 18 year old with an 8 year old? Of course. 18 with 16 is still pretty clearly "fine" (I use "fine" here to mean not criminal/coercion.) With a 9 year old is still pretty obviously not "fine". But at a certain point, you just don't know. Where does it stop being "statuatory rape" and start being "fine"?

The bottom line is there are going to be different situations and gray areas here. I don't know all the answers. Maybe some 16 year olds can consent to sex with a 33 year old. Maybe others can't. I get why that's kind of a "gray" area. I'm not saying this guy should have gone to jail (Well, except for the fact that he's a freaking politician;)) but I don't see what exactly is praiseworthy about him. If you really have to put a gay person on a stamp, there's always Justin Raimondo:p

[Origanalist]

Wasn't that in a movie? Either way--that's awesome.

How is that awesome? Please explain.

[dannno]

I don't know. Can a 30 year old have sex with a 10 year old?

No.



So what is your cut off point? And why is that any better than the state's cut off point?

Would the state's cutoff point be better if it were 21? Why not 25? Why don't we make people wait until they are 50 before we recognize that they have their own volition and can have sex with whoever they want, as long as they are over 50?

I would say a good age would be one where all or nearly all that age are physically mature enough to have sex, which is about 14 or 15. Maybe a good rule would be when you are under 14 you can only have sex with others under 18, when you are 14 there should be an 8 or 10 year maximum spread and by age 15 a 14 year spread and after that it should pretty much be their decision.. However parents should play a very strong role and provide advice and persuade their children to act responsibly and as a later resort may restrict their activities as long as they want to continue living in their house.

[Origanalist]

This is a continuum issue, and exactly why I really don't engage this topic much. Should an 18 year old who sleeps with a 17 year old be criminally charged? Of course not. An 18 year old with an 8 year old? Of course. 18 with 16 is still pretty clearly "fine" (I use "fine" here to mean not criminal/coercion.) With a 9 year old is still pretty obviously not "fine". But at a certain point, you just don't know. Where does it stop being "statuatory rape" and start being "fine"?

The bottom line is there are going to be different situations and gray areas here. I don't know all the answers. Maybe some 16 year olds can consent to sex with a 33 year old. Maybe others can't. I get why that's kind of a "gray" area. I'm not saying this guy should have gone to jail (Well, except for the fact that he's a freaking politician;)) but I don't see what exactly is praiseworthy about him. If you really have to put a gay person on a stamp, there's always Justin Raimondo:p

The point is this guy repeatedly honed in on under aged young men who were vulnerable. It's not like he fell in love with one and lived with him for decades.

[Danke]

No.




Would the state's cutoff point be better if it were 21? Why not 25? Why don't we make people wait until they are 50 before we recognize that they have their own volition and can have sex with whoever they want, as long as they are over 50?

I would say a good age would be one where all or nearly all that age are physically mature enough to have sex, which is about 14 or 15. Maybe a good rule would be when you are under 14 you can only have sex with others under 18, when you are 14 there should be an 8 or 10 year maximum spread and by age 15 a 14 year spread and after that it should pretty much be their decision.. However parents should play a very strong role and provide advice and persuade their children to act responsibly and as a later resort may restrict their activities as long as they want to continue living in their house.

So you have an arbitrary cut off point just like the state has now. That was my point.

[Christian Liberty]

The point is this guy repeatedly honed in on under aged young men who were vulnerable. It's not like he fell in love with one and lived with him for decades.

Not sure that distinction can really mean anything legally, though it certainly does morally.

Then again, morally the idea that a man would ever fall in love with another man disgusts me by itself. Sorry, but that's just how it is.

[Christian Liberty]

So you have an arbitrary cut off point just like the state has now. That was my point.

I think its hard to deny that 18 is better than 25 though. I mean, I guess you COULD deny it, I get that its all arbitrary, but why would you deny it?

I think the teens is where it starts to get tricky. Maybe at younger ages for people close in age (I wouldn't arrest a 13 year old who had sex with a 12 year old, however strongly I would advise them NOT to do that) but as far as adults go, I think its clear that an 18 year old can consent and that a 12 year old really can't. But again, its all really arbitrary to begin with.

[Origanalist]

Not sure that distinction can really mean anything legally, though it certainly does morally.

Then again, morally the idea that a man would ever fall in love with another man disgusts me by itself. Sorry, but that's just how it is.

It's really not our place to say. My point is that he is a predator and deserves no honor at all.

[KurtBoyer25L]

:rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, if this was consensual, it was not "rape" and very well possibly should be legal ("Age of consent" is something I'm still a little shaky on, I expect a stateless society would come up with a reasonable solution, and until then I'm shooting blind) but I don't see why the heck it should be CELEBRATED.

Thanks for the smirk & the eyeroll, Fox News.

They're not celebrating his taboo love relationships, they're celebrating the acceptance of non-heterosexuals into public service.

[Danke]

I think its hard to deny that 18 is better than 25 though. I mean, I guess you COULD deny it, I get that its all arbitrary, but why would you deny it?


I'm not "denying" nor advocating anything.

Just pointing out it is arbitrary.

[KurtBoyer25L]

The point is this guy repeatedly honed in on under aged young men who were vulnerable. It's not like he fell in love with one and lived with him for decades.

Monogamy is not the only way to fall in love. Judging by the divorce rate, it might be the worst way.

Don't forget there is a minefield of assumptions & implied premises to wade through each time a subject like this comes up.

[Root]

Ban stamps.

[Origanalist]

Monogamy is not the only way to fall in love. Judging by the divorce rate, it might be the worst way.

Don't forget there is a minefield of assumptions & implied premises to wade through each time a subject like this comes up.

Let's not confuse love and commitment with lust.

[Origanalist]

Ban stamps.

Even the forever stamps?

[KurtBoyer25L]

So you have an arbitrary cut off point just like the state has now. That was my point.

Danno's suggestion is more reasoned out than our current laws though. The 16-17-18 year old AOC laws are designed to "protect" people who are physically mature enough to "have sex," which of course in current society refers completely to stuffing things in bodily orifices. A 14 yr old AOC would set the age where a normal teenager is able to have sexual intercourse w/o the immediate threat of physical harm.

You don't need an AOC law to protect 10 year olds if the standard is objective, bodily harm & not our literally insane view of sexuality as a culture. It's impossible to have either straight or ***** sex (by the above definition) w/ a 10 year old w/o physically harming them, so it should be a serious/lifetime incarceration-type crime in the same way as permanently maiming a little kid in some other way should be, even if the child consented fully.

[KurtBoyer25L]

Let's not confuse love and commitment with lust.

Who are you to say what love & commitment should mean to other people? And is the concept of "lust" even something objective that is proven to exist? I personally don't grasp the concept of "lust" except as a clumsy way of describing a human social behavior. The concept of lust is based on the alleged separation of mind, spirit & body that the Christian church brought into the public consciousness & pushed at every opportunity, so it's like inventing your own false paradigm then pointing out people's acceptance of it as proof of the very concept you invented to teach them. Not everyone accepts the premises you do.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Damn, I really thought this was going to be about Ben Franklin. :(


Yeah, Ben Franklin is definitely more interesting than the subject of this thread. The Jefferson generation probably talked about how great it was to party with Franklin. The hooker girls must've nicknamed him Big Balls, or something like that. He could probably drink a 12 pak in half an hour.



How is that awesome? Please explain.

Well, you know, being named Bunny and all. Sort of like Lucille carwashing in front of the inmates.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Jimmy Carter had some famous line about lust. Another naïve guy who just couldn't keep his mouth shut.

[Origanalist]

Who are you to say what love & commitment should mean to other people? And is the concept of "lust" even something objective that is proven to exist? I personally don't grasp the concept of "lust" except as a clumsy way of describing a human social behavior. The concept of lust is based on the alleged separation of mind, spirit & body that the Christian church brought into the public consciousness & pushed at every opportunity, so it's like inventing your own false paradigm then pointing out people's acceptance of it as proof of the very concept you invented to teach them. Not everyone accepts the premises you do.

Well hell, hardly anyone here accepts the premises I do, but that's ok. There was a time when most people understood that sexual gratification came with responsibility and commitment. That reality has been attacked and mocked since the Great Society was introduced.

[Origanalist]

Yeah, Ben Franklin is definitely more interesting than the subject of this thread. The Jefferson generation probably talked about how great it was to party with Franklin. The hooker girls must've nicknamed him Big Balls, or something like that. He could probably drink a 12 pak in half an hour.




Well, you know, being named Bunny and all. Sort of like Lucille carwashing in front of the inmates.

Sorry, you lost me.

[Danke]

Danno's suggestion is more reasoned out than our current laws though. The 16-17-18 year old AOC laws are designed to "protect" people who are physically mature enough to "have sex," which of course in current society refers completely to stuffing things in bodily orifices. A 14 yr old AOC would set the age where a normal teenager is able to have sexual intercourse w/o the immediate threat of physical harm.

You don't need an AOC law to protect 10 year olds if the standard is objective, bodily harm & not our literally insane view of sexuality as a culture. It's impossible to have either straight or ***** sex (by the above definition) w/ a 10 year old w/o physically harming them, so it should be a serious/lifetime incarceration-type crime in the same way as permanently maiming a little kid in some other way should be, even if the child consented fully.

What age is your cut off?

[KurtBoyer25L]

Well hell, hardly anyone here accepts the premises I do, but that's ok. There was a time when most people understood that sexual gratification came with responsibility and commitment. That reality has been attacked and mocked since the Great Society was introduced.

Your definition of responsibility. Your definition of commitment. Your ideas & those of the organization/s that have influenced you. Not necessarily the absolute truth.

[dannno]

So you have an arbitrary cut off point just like the state has now. That was my point.

My limit is not nearly as arbitrary, it is based on when an individual has the capability to understand the decision they are making. The state's limit is highly arbitrary and it creates more limitations on the rights of both adults and teenagers than my limit. Mine allows parents and individuals to create greater personal limits for greater personal decision making.

[Origanalist]

Your definition of responsibility. Your definition of commitment. Your ideas & those of the organization/s that have influenced you. Not necessarily the absolute truth.

Not mine. Universally understood concepts for thousands of years.

[KurtBoyer25L]

What age is your cut off?

I haven't proposed a "cut off" style law so I can't really say. If you forced me to doctrinate some such law, it would be no intercourse for those under 14 I suppose. Under the standard of objective physical harm. Of course, even kissing or holding hands with a 13 year old would still qualify as "grooming" or "molestation" under current witch-hunter doctrine, as it basically does now for kissing or holding hands with anyone a day younger than the AOC.

[KurtBoyer25L]

Not mine. Universally understood concepts for thousands of years.

What a crock, seriously.

[Origanalist]

What a crock, seriously.

Well, that's a really good argument.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Sorry, you lost me.

Classic Cool Hand Luke movie scene.

[Danke]

My limit is not nearly as arbitrary, it is based on when an individual has the capability to understand the decision they are making. The state's limit is highly arbitrary and it creates more limitations on the rights of both adults and teenagers than my limit. Mine allows parents and individuals to create greater personal limits for greater personal decision making.

Sounds good, so no state involvement. I'm with that.

[oyarde]

I thought everybody was on a stamp these days.

The last stamp article I read was millions in losses on Simpsons stamps that were to be destroyed because they did not sell before the price was hiked...... for real.

[Danke]

The last stamp article I read was millions in losses on Simpsons stamps that were to be destroyed because they did not sell before the price was hiked...... for real.

I bet you have a bunch of these:

http://behance.vo.llnwd.net/profiles26/1041297/projects/3741723/980f0f4e5452107ee2a341ba3c75d818.jpg

[Origanalist]

I can remember very large tracts of forest that scumbags used to disappear into, never to be heard from again.

[green73]

I miss the days when Nikkivagina would come into these threads and tell us what disgusting slimeballs male libertarians are. :^(

[oyarde]

I bet you have a bunch of these:

http://behance.vo.llnwd.net/profiles26/1041297/projects/3741723/980f0f4e5452107ee2a341ba3c75d818.jpg

Hell , I have never even seen one of those . Art work ( I hate to be a critic as I have no talent ) , not really impressive, my annual state duck stamp and upland bird stamp ( back in the day when I bothered to buy them :) ) were much , much better. I cannot tell by the depiction what she represents , except maybe Wolf Clan, which could be Cherokee , or about a hundred other things , lol

[oyarde]

I bet you have a bunch of these:

http://behance.vo.llnwd.net/profiles26/1041297/projects/3741723/980f0f4e5452107ee2a341ba3c75d818.jpg

If you are sitting on a couple sheets of those , I will take one , lol

[oyarde]

By the way , that Milk dipshit is a very good rep for the modern San Fran Dem party, he probably had more morals than they though ....

[KurtBoyer25L]

Well, that's a really good argument.

Because I can't believe you're serious. You act as though Christian, westernized definitions of the family unit are the only ones that ever existed among peaceful people. What about all the cultures in the world that have successfully practiced non-monogamy for thousands of years? With much lower rates of divorce & mental breakdown than are caused by our version of "responsible, moral" paradigms? To say that churchy white patriarchal attitudes above love & sex are the only ideas ever widely accepted by civilized people is patently absurd.

[MRK]

A 33 year old man with someone younger than 18 is considered rape.

This is a jurisdictionally variable integer.

[KurtBoyer25L]

I can remember very large tracts of forest that scumbags used to disappear into, never to be heard from again.

Well, that's a really civilized point of view.

[MRK]

Because I can't believe you're serious. You act as though Christian, westernized definitions of the family unit are the only ones that ever existed among peaceful people. What about all the cultures in the world that have successfully practiced non-monogamy for thousands of years? With much lower rates of divorce & mental breakdown than are caused by our version of "responsible, moral" paradigms? To say that churchy white patriarchal attitudes above love & sex are the only ideas ever widely accepted by civilized people is patently absurd.

Well, many of these cultures produced buck all in terms of progressing humanity past the point of living in huts and caves. Something to think about.

[Danke]

This is a jurisdictionally variable integer.

Yes it is, so?

[Tod]

By who?

I expect a whole lot of fathers would have given Milk a bullet if it were their son he had raped. That's why people like him target kids that lack a loving, supportive family.

[KurtBoyer25L]

Well, many of these cultures produced buck all in terms of progressing humanity past the point of living in huts and caves. Something to think about.

That's a good point. I'm not sure if any of them were as successful at killing & enslaving people as white people have been. Many primitive, violent cultures have been monogamous ones, too, or at least shared our paradigm of woman-as-property of thou who bops her.

[KurtBoyer25L]

I expect a whole lot of fathers would have given Milk a bullet if it were their son he had raped. That's why people like him target kids that lack a loving, supportive family.

Yeah, because a weird/dangerous/rogue Dad is always less vicious than a jovial/optimistic one.

By putting it the way you do, you give sanction to the government/media establishment's misuse & abuse of the word "rape." Calling these volitional, peaceful sex acts "rape" is a disrespect to actual violent rape victims.

[BuddyRey]

I'm no fan of honoring the wicked, whether they be murderers or perverts.



Nobody'd be honoring them, that's for sure. For me, the only difference would be that we'd be honoring a semi-pedophile who isn't a homosexual rather than one who is. One form of perversion instead of two. So what?

Martin Luther King Jr., Jerry Lee Lewis, Elijah Muhammed, Elvis Presley, and probably Joseph Smith and Brigham (Bring'em) Young are just a few examples of culturally and historically beloved figures who were into underage girls. I don't defend what they did, but to say that same-sex pedophiles get a free pass in the history books while opposite-sex pedophiles don't is, I believe, not entirely accurate.

[pcosmar]

Well of course this is the kind of person this country should be honoring.

Don't buy the stamps.

it really is that simple.

[Origanalist]

Don't buy the stamps.

it really is that simple.

Well ya, there's that. And I won't. I don't know why I'm even surprised at a sexual predator being put on a stamp.

[Christian Liberty]

Martin Luther King Jr., Jerry Lee Lewis, Elijah Muhammed, Elvis Presley, and probably Joseph Smith and Brigham (Bring'em) Young are just a few examples of culturally and historically beloved figures who were into underage girls. I don't defend what they did, but to say that same-sex pedophiles get a free pass in the history books while opposite-sex pedophiles don't is, I believe, not entirely accurate.

MLK Jr. was into underage girls? That I didn't know.

The thing with this particular dude, though, is that he's being honored BECAUSE of his sexuality. That isn't the case for the others you mentioned.

[TheNung]

Pfft... big whoop. War criminals get bloody great marble monuments in the fashion of legendary gods built to them in Washington D.C.

Stamps are amateur hour.

100% agree. Abe Lincoln has been on our currency for a hundred years now, people. A warmongering tyrant who jailed thousands, killed millions, and took a big ol' dump on that Constitution thing we all like to talk about so much. I think that's worse than some gay "statutory" rapist who may or may not have actually been a rapist since it was all apparently consensual making it to a postage stamp. Does anyone even send letters anymore? We should bring that back. Letters rule.

[BuddyRey]

The thing with this particular dude, though, is that he's being honored BECAUSE of his sexuality. That isn't the case for the others you mentioned.

That's actually a very valid point, and one I hadn't considered. One thing I particularly dislike about progressives is their tendency to invest a great deal of significance in incidental attributes of a human being that should be of little importance (race, gender, sexual orientation, handicap, etc.) They think they're combatting hatred by celebrating people being black, gay, or handicapped, but really they're just drawing even more attention to the differences instead of letting the people with those differences be just...people.

The few gays I've known in my lifetime were so unremarkable...such run-of-the-mill, average Joe, flannel-and-workboots type folks that their preference didn't even come up in conversation until I'd already known them for months. So I sometimes wonder if the most tragic victims of this whole "celebrate gay people because of their gayness" movement might not be gays themselves, who now feel like walking spectacles because of such a minor part of their identity. Not to mention the fact that someone landing on a postage stamp just for being a public figure in one of those minority groups reeks of the soft bigotry of low expectations.

[Christian Liberty]

100% agree. Abe Lincoln has been on our currency for a hundred years now, people. A warmongering tyrant who jailed thousands, killed millions, and took a big ol' dump on that Constitution thing we all like to talk about so much. I think that's worse than some gay "statutory" rapist who may or may not have actually been a rapist since it was all apparently consensual making it to a postage stamp. Does anyone even send letters anymore? We should bring that back. Letters rule.

I don't like any of it.


That's actually a very valid point, and one I hadn't considered. One thing I particularly dislike about progressives is their tendency to invest a great deal of significance in incidental attributes of a human being that should be of little importance (race, gender, sexual orientation, handicap, etc.) They think they're combatting hatred by celebrating people being black, gay, or handicapped, but really they're just drawing even more attention to the differences instead of letting the people with those differences be just...people.

The few gays I've known in my lifetime were so unremarkable...such run-of-the-mill, average Joe, flannel-and-workboots type folks that their preference didn't even come up in conversation until I'd already known them for months. So I sometimes wonder if the most tragic victims of this whole "celebrate gay people because of their gayness" movement might not be gays themselves, who now feel like walking spectacles because of such a minor part of their identity. Not to mention the fact that someone landing on a postage stamp just for being a public figure in one of those minority groups reeks of the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Yep. As I joked earlier in this thread, if they need to put a gay public figure on there, they should put Justin Raimondo. But of course, the progressives wouldn't do that, since the man is actually concerned about liberty and opposition to government murder (war) and those things are much more important to him than the "Sexual orientation" crapola.

BTW: Regarding the figures you mentioned, I respect Martin Luther King's methods of peaceful activism and his opposition to war although I obviously don't agree with him on everything he did or believed (I know he was a socialist, BTW)... I don't know the other two, but as for the Mormon "prophets" screw them:p