^^^Finished reading the Wikipedia piece on Harvey Milk.
How sad that the gay-bashers would focus on one possible indiscretion of his when he was a relatively young 30 or 31 while ignoring the lifetime of accomplishment of this great man. Milk died of an assassins bullet. So he is not around to defend himself or explain his actions. How easy it is to smear the reputation of a man who died so prematurely from such a violent death.
Age of consent across most of Europe is 16 or sometimes as low as 14 I think, a few places put it at 17 or 18, so I'm not particularly bothered by it.
I'm generally a bit suspicious even of legal relationships where 1 person is in their teens and the other is significantly older, but if the guy never mentioned regretting it or being harmed by the relationship then probably a case of no fire without smoke.
Anyway this whole distraction is kind of irrelevant because he, and other historic leaders in the LGBT community could all be mad rapists and it still wouldn't actually make the point any more valid.
This wouldn't prove anything, just as unethical spiritual leaders don't prove that all religious people are similar, and unethical hollywood bigshots don't prove that all actors/showbiz people are similar, and unethical politicians don' prove that all politicians are similar. (although the sheer number of politicians who seem to be dickheads is suspicious!)
They are all leaders in their ways, and people in positions of power, leadership and trust, have the greatest temptation to abuse in whatever ways appeal to them, and the greatest outcry when they are discovered. But not all leaders are unethical, and certainly that doesn't affect those who follow them.
An obvious exception to this occurs when a leader is known to be evil in some way and is supported anyway, at that point you can start distrusting all their followers.