[ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only itweren'ttrue

[Olga Bourlin]

From: "spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:39 PM


>I don't see why that is stupid Olga.  What if they could develop a gay 
>bomb?

What?  You've never heard of the Enola Gay bomb?  (all right, I'm ashamed at 
myself ...)

> Wars could be finished using non-lethal means that wouldn't even leave
> scars.  Presumably after the chemical wore off the guys would return to
> their original orientation.  It didn't work, but too bad for humanity, ja?
> I don't understand your objection.

I'm all for better living through chemistry, but it seems to me this subject 
is not as simple as it may appear on the surface.  If this story continues 
to develop, I'll be watching and listening - especially, from the viewpoint 
of the gay community.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-arnstein/gay-bomb-considered-by-ai_b_50675.html

Aaron Belkin, director of the University of California's Michael Palm 
Centre, which studies the issue of gays in the military, said: "The idea 
that you could submit someone to some aerosol spray and change their sexual 
behaviour is ludicrous."
http://www.gaylinknews.com/index-news.cfm

"Funny in a way. but this also says a lot about how high level government 
officials view us. I guess we're so sexually out of control that we'd 
actually let an army come slaughter us before we think to give up fucking."

http://www.queerty.com/news/gay-bomb-plans-blasted-open-20070611/

"What also has to be considered is that if the Pentagon had developed this 
'weapon', where would they have tested it, and on whom? Would they have used 
fresh, new recruits? Would they have filmed the results and would they have 
told the guinea pigs what the experiment was in aid of? Unfortunately, it 
seems we'll never know.

While gay groups might bleat about how offensive it all is, war in itself is 
far more objectionable, as is the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. 
If this bomb had been developed just think of all the places it could have 
been dispensed had some gay terrorists got hold of it."

http://uk.gay.com/article/5611/

"Laughable"? Ok. I agree. But "offensive"? I don't see that. The Pentagon 
plan would have turned straight people into gay people. Isn't that ... I 
don't know ... empowering or something? True, those gay people would then be 
targeted by U.S. military assets as they engaged in gay coupling in lieu of 
their military activities, thereby presumably winnowing their ranks through 
death. But the net effect might well be more gay people not fewer. How can 
you be homophobic when you're minting new homosexuals?"

http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2007/06/12/jonathan-kay-on-the-pentagon-s-plan-to-build-a-gay-bomb-why-is-this-2005-story-news-again.aspx

Here we are trying to exterminate all our gays and damn if the military 
doesn't go and try to get money to create a whole 'nother race of 'em.":

and

"The Tuskegee Syphilis Study comes to mind -- not because of some imagined 
special connection between gay men and STDs -- but because that study still 
stands as stark and frightening proof of how far OUR government has gone in 
the name of science. Here, with the twin objects of science and militarism, 
it's scary to think how this concept may have been tested in its preliminary 
phases.":

http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2007/06/military_intelligence.aspx