“Gay Bomb” Proposed by the Pentagon
Now, I know what you’re thinking: the military wanted an explosive device that would only kill gays, but would leave heterosexuals unscathed — much like a rapture based on sexual orientation rather than religious affiliation. But that’s not exactly what they had in mind.
“The Ohio Air Force lab proposed that a bomb be developed that contained a chemical that would cause enemy soliders to become gay, and to have their units break down because all their soldiers became irresistably attractive to one another.” Click here to read the CBS 5 article.
They have since dropped the idea, but it offers fun insights into how conservatives think:
- Gay is something that you can become and un-become, rather than are or aren’t
- Chemicals could exist that can turn one gay (which would explain gay Christians, I guess)
- Gays can’t serve in the military because they are preoccupied with sex
- The next worst thing to actually being bombed would be to be bombed into homosexuality
- Conservatives (in the military) apparently spend time worrying about men becoming “irresistibly attractive to one another” in much the same manner that they worry about being overwhelmed by Muslim extremists (the world is indeed a very dangerous place in the conservative mind)
LeftHook
This was a CLINTON time IDEA!
The Pentagon told CBS 5 that the proposal was made by the Air Force in 1994.
So what, it’s still funny.
And are you suggesting that any idea proposed during the Clinton Presidency must have been Clinton’s idea?
Does this sound like a liberal proposal to you?
I do not know. But it was durring Clinton time!
hey lefty…
get a life…
wow!
eeevil: Maybe you’ve been “winger bombed”, and you’re really a flaming liberal.
Do you remember a time some years ago when you were laughing gleefully at an episode of Will & Grace, and all of a sudden there was a strange smell, and then the show just didn’t seem that funny anymore?
You were ‘winger bombed’!!
I do get a kick out of LeftHook automatically assuming this was a conservative idea!
Case in point, it turns out Senator Lindsay Graham is a closeted homosexual, but not all that many folks know yet. And a Democrat is out with an ad stating “Graham is too light in the loafers to represent South Carolina”. Talk about hypocrisy! Anyone who thinks either party is on the level these days doesn’t have a clue!!
Hugh,
Isn’t that an old ad? As a matter of fact, I don’t think there’s even an ad. His former opponent called him “light in the loafers” back in 2002 but did not run an ad saying such-he said it either to the press or at a debate. It’s a pretty well known fact that Lindsay is gay, it’s just that the SC press protects him for some reason.
If a candidate is running an ad,(do you have a link?), it’s more to make the fundies stay home than anything else.
caroline
Do you think it was right for a Democrat opponent to call Graham “light in the loafers”?
Do you think the guy violated hate laws?
John,
Obviously you want to remain ignorant of hate laws. I’ve explained them time and again but you either can’t or won’t learn. You know calling the guy gay isn’t a hate crime and don’t pretend differently.
Eh, it’s SC but he still shouldn’t have mentioned the fact that Graham is gay. Do you think it should matter? Do you think pandering to the fundies is a good thing?
caroline
You did not answer the question!
Do you think it was right for a Democrat opponent to call Graham “light in the loafers”?
John,
Yes, I did answer the question. Read my post again.
I get a kick out of the posts that assume, because this idea was considered in 1994, that therefore it must have arisen in the “liberal” era.
Aside from the fact that President Clinton was strictly middle-of-the-road in the political culture of the time (i.e., flaming liberal now), this study wouldn’t have even been discussed unless there was years of research behind it . . . say, back in the 1980s.
Gay is something that you can become and un-become, rather than are or aren’t
There is a growing body of research indicating that sexual orientation is a mutable trait over a person’s lifetime. There is no empirical evidence to show that homosexuality is an inborn trait.
Chemicals could exist that can turn one gay (which would explain gay Christians, I guess)
There are chemicals that can affect individuals sexual orientation. The trouble is that they are most effective when a person is developing in the womb.
Gays can’t serve in the military because they are preoccupied with sex
The next worst thing to actually being bombed would be to be bombed into homosexuality
Do you have any idea just how much Gay pornography is devoted to fantasy related to military service? Take a look for yourself.
Conservatives (in the military) apparently spend time worrying about men becoming “irresistibly attractive to one another” in much the same manner that they worry about being overwhelmed by Muslim extremists (the world is indeed a very dangerous place in the conservative mind)
Anything that poses a threat to America is fair game. It’s too bad that democrats would rather advocate for homosexuality and work to protect terrorists abroad rather than support their own nation. Perhaps when they are not able to drive to their jobs in their hummers while sipping starbucks because terrorists blew up their workplace, car and home… Maybe then they will reconsider the assinine nature of their policies.
James: There’s also a growing body of research that suggests global warming isn’t happening, and if it is, it’s unrelated to human activity. I suspect this and the research to which you refer is being “grown” by the same kinds of “thinkers”.
As for the gay chemicals, do individual fetusus (fetie?) choose to partake or not to partake of these chemicals? Of the ones that do, can we give them a little fetus spanking, or a fetus time out as punishment?
I’ll take your word for how much gay porn is devoted to military fantisies. Have you ever noticed how much hetro porn is devoted to 1-man/2-women 3-ways? Do you suggest we create policies that keep men away from social or work setting where they might encounter more than one woman at a time? Or would you suggest birkas?
And thanks for making my conservatives are genetically prone to seeing “threats to America” all around them.
According to Aubrey’s observations (of sexual habits in the area) perhaps we’ve already dropped some of this stuff. Problem is, now WE’RE on the ground. I hope this ain’t the case.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Nn-f2uCSNY
Of course many “conservative themes” found in videos are simply the result of severe dementia on my part.
(dementedness)
Bill,
Man, you are so twisted!
Or just not sharing the goods.
I’m demented!
Don’t be cutting in on my act, danggit!
David,
I love the leaping to conclusions. So the military was gay under Clinton? Oh, no… just liberal! Were the Generals getting bj’s from privates while the Big C was getting smoked in the Oval Office?
Man, does that mean that conservatives were gay under Clinton, too?
Just twisting the facts for the conservatives.
MD
eeevil,
Glad you’re back.
I missed abusing ya!
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=138597&page=2&ESRC=dod.nl
LOL!
So the word “if” was used in the proposal to douse our enemies with Spanish Fly? (aka an old street name for aphrodisiac).
“IF” we could find some chemicals that would make our enemies … so horny … “Me so horny, GI!” …
Not going to comment on this anymore.