Tuesday, June 12, 2007
That is sooooo gay
I think some of the commentary on the so-called gay bomb has been a bit unfair, if we ignore what the activist whiner says it was supposed to do. The punchline here was:
As part of a military effort to develop non-lethal weapons, the proposal suggested, "One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior." The activist whiner, Edward Hammond, insists that the goal was to "cause enemy soldiers to become gay," and then a bunch of other activist whiners insist that this implies that gay people cannot keep their hands off each other or some such.
The actual document is not noted anywhere, as far as I can tell, which is important because we're expected to take the word of an activist whiner.
If the quoted section is correct and an accurate summary, then the bomb wouldn't have "made people gay." It would've given them irresistible homosexual urges through some kind of chemical stimulant. This would probably mean it would be temporary, and wouldn't "turn anyone gay." The homosexuality is, of course, a benefit when fighting primarily male forces, but I don't see anything suggesting the point was that the gayness itself was what would cause the inability to focus on fighting.
And while Hammond insists that it was brought up numerous times, it seems to be merely pointed to as a conceptual example. There's nothing suggesting that the idea was actually considered more than once.
It's not that this is important, and I'd hate to take away everyone's fun (and these things may very well be in the record, but the case certainly wasn't made). Still, the approach of taking a strange idea, twisting it into something it's not, and then provoking a PC backlash to your own idiotic idea that's directed at the original idea bothers me on many levels, especially when it comes to saving lives. The concept of using chemicals to manipulate sexual behavior is not completely absurd, and there's an entire industry built around it.
. . .
|
. . .
|
