Democrats canonize only the "best" people in their party... the ones they can milk for political gain.

"One of those “young waifs” victimized by Milk was 16-year-old Jack Galen McKinley, who had run away from his home in Maryland and was desperate for a “father figure.” Instead, he found a child predator in Milk. McKinley went on to kill himself.

Harvey Milk raped kids.

The age of consent in California was 18, making Milk a child rapist by definition. Other children were also reportedly raped by Milk, who was known for and defended having multiple relationships with men and children at the same time."

I think he's a little full of himself, personally.

https://freebeacon.com/california/political-grandstanding-newsoms-push-to-strongarm-california-school-district-lacks-legal-standing/

I'm in favor of the books if they would include that information.

Rewrite history with omissions... it's what they do...

Wow!! I never knew that. And the city I live near has a Harvey Milk Blvd. It wasn't always named that but when the city elected a lesbian mayor that was the first thing she did.

I always thought it was odd because I don't live in California. As far as I know Milk has no connection whatsoever to the state I live in. On top of that why did a man who got shot by his gay ex-lover become the national gay hero? Seriously? What did he do for gays outside of San Francisco? He just go famous because his ex-lover got exonerated based on the infamous Twinkie defense.

So now I will always refer to that street as Pedophile Blvd.

The guy was a sexual predator... no wonder why Hollywood glorified him with a movie...

That is probably why the specifically picked him as the gay civil rights hero. But that doesn't exactly work. He never did anything for gays. He's just famous because he got shot.

So, some some context… and correction.

Dan White was not Milk’s ex-lover. He was Democrat politician who publicly loved gays but seemed to hold ire to homosexuals privately. He was fiercely competitive and egotistical and couldn’t help losing in a council vote where he was the sole nay.

Harvey Milk was a local politician so he likely did very little for Gay people on a national level. But being one of the first outspoken gay politicians prompted other gay politicians to be more open and honest as well. Believe it or not, that is of historical significance. Milk backed many proposals that benefited gays in his community and encouraged them to become more open as well. He thought if gay people accepted themselves, society would follow.

The allegations of pedophilia are a smear tactic. While Jack McKinley was 16 when he began a relationship with Milk at 33, the age of consent in New York at the time was 14. When they moved to California together, McKinley was 18. I couldn’t find why they separated, nor could I validate the claim that McKinley killed himself because of Milk.

Milk was assassinated in 1977.

While McKinley became suicidal after the fact.

One could speculate that McKinley was upset more to the assassination than abuse.

And while McKinley was a substance abuser, I couldn’t find in any history of his use of drugs prior to Milk’s death. It appears the substance abuse started after.

At best, I’ve seen it argued that Milk’s history should be scrutinized as intensely as other historical figures who’re being judged by today’s standards and that it’s hypocritical to not cancel him while cancelling other historical figures.

However, the intensity of the attempt to cancel him, by the right, merits it’s own hypocrisy as it clearly has to invent a story to capitalize on an attempt to cancel Milk.

Which, honestly, is rather pathetic.

Thanks. There is a whole lot that I didn't know. I had always heard that the guy that shot him was his ex but apparently that was wrong.

I still do not think Milk's contribution to gays came anywhere near as close to Martin Luther King's contribution to blacks. In fact I think MLK deserves more credit for helping gays, indirectly, than Milk. MLK fought for equal rights under the law because blacks were being shut out of everything and that was a direct violation of the Constitution. Gays never had it even anywhere close to as bad as blacks had it. MLK advanced the rights of all people to have equal footing under the law, not just blacks.

Gays could keep their homosexuality hidden and no one would ever have bothered them. Blacks never had that option.

Is it wrong that gays had to hide who they are. I would submit that the answer is both yes and no. No, because no one should be mistreated in anyway for any reason but yes for the exact same reason why identity theft is such a problem. Gays hid their sexuality. Everyone, gay, straight, black, whatever, today has to hide just about everything about themselves online just to keep safe.

I know an couple who had their identity stolen and they lost everything they had. He had retired and he is not so sharp in his mind these days. His wife is younger and does not have a diminished capacity. It was his diminished capacity that caused him to fall for the scam and they took his entire life savings. They had to sell their house and moved in with their son.

So, I find absolutely no problem with hiding details about yours or my life because there will always be people out there who will abuse and take advantage of that knowledge.

I didn't know that anywhere had an age of consent as low as 14. That seems excessive. 16 is too low in my opinion. I think there are some people who the age of consent should be in their 20's. I know in England you are considered an adult at 16. I think 18 is about right for most of us but like I said there are some people who just cannot grow up until they are in their 20's and even into their 30's.

I question the age of consent and I think it needs to be per individual. Some people mature really fast at a young age and their age of consent could be at a younger age but 14 is too low.

Historical relevance and influence are rarely measured by their greatness. Martin Luther’s contributions are not marginalized or undone by the first Black President, the first Black congressman, the first Black mayor, Black sheriff. That does not erase the historical significance of any of these people at a seemingly turning point in the advancement of minorities within their respective group or their political achievements.

Many states, especially in the south, had (and still have) ages below 18 for the age of consent. In 1880, the ages of consent were set at 10 or 12 in most states, with the exception of Delaware where it was 7.

Toward the 20th century, this was raised to the more current ages we’re more which we’re more familiar. It should also be noted that originally, these age of consent laws only applied when a female was younger than her male partner until 2015 when it was changed to be more gender neutral. Yes, that late, which makes the claim even more dubious.

Age of consent is unfortunately rather arbitrary and steeped in politics rather than any real moral code. True, scientifically, we could set the age of consent to when we develop from adolescence to adult by the maturity of the brain… which by scientific standards is actually mid-to-late twenties but if we went by sexual maturity or puberty it would be different between the sexes. For girls, puberty usually occurs between ages 10 to 14, and for boys, between ages 12 to 16. Which would further complicate laws on terms of equality. I think 16-18 is rather fair.

I only somewhat agree that it should be considered on an individual basis but I think there is a conservative merit to strive for a more consistent age or range even if it can be, at times, unfair to the individual.

Oh I missed this…

I think Milk’s thoughts on people being open and honest about their homosexuality have very real merit.

People who hide who they are create a severe disconnect in the people they keep such a secret and whom they really are which can be incredibly detrimental to not just their identity but their mental health. Even people who do not wish to be homosexual and choose to hide or deny their sexual urges can become even more volatile.

I believe Milk’s perspective comes from knowing people who were closeted and not, and saw real improvements in people who were open. He acknowledged the double edged sword that while they gain self respect they risked the lost of communal respect. However, Milk thought that eventually society itself would eventually mature to accept homosexuals which is honestly a pretty optimistic and not an entirely unrealistic idea.

One that I’m inclined to agree with.

Now would Milk be in favor of these blatant display of sexual behavior that go way beyond just mere displays of affection out in open? No, I don’t think that’s exactly what he would advocate. There is a vast difference in accepting one self and teabagging your partner out in the open over a rainbow flag.

But I would also argue these radical behaviors are merely a response to the even more radical behaviors of those who wish to suppress them. We’re just witnessing a kind of political escalation in response to any oppression no matter how slight it may be.

Yup... and George Floyd was a saint too... LOL

If you say so.

Realistically, he was just another victim of police brutality.

This is what happens when people make exaggerations. Maybe don’t do that if you don’t want to be called out for extraordinary and unprovable claims.

Just stick to the facts.

Don’t try to be liberals.

You’ll just become the very liberal boogeymen you rant and rave about.