Monday, January 17, 2005

Make (gay) love, not war

Via Joshua over at Katolic Shinja, this is just too hilarious.

The Pentagon briefly looked into making a weapon that would render enemy troops sexually attracted to one another, according to an official document uncovered by a watchdog group that monitors research into biological and chemical weapons.

Fanclub[I wonder what that weapon would look like? Something straight out of "The Ambigiously Gay Duo" series one would expect.]

The aphrodisiac chemical would be designed to make enemy soldiers sexually irresistible to each other.

[Now wouldn't THAT make for a great war movie scene? I'm sure Oliver Stone would do it right]

The resulting widespread homosexual behavior, the proposal suggests, would cause a "distasteful but completely non-lethal blow" to morale.

[No puns intended, I'm sure]

The proposal estimated that the cost of the project over six years would top $7 million.

[Oh man, that's chump change! And to think that if this proposal had been accepted, we would have had the "gay bombs" ready for the Afghanistan war. Can you think of a better target for forced gay sex than the Taliban?

Edward Hammond of the Sunshine Project [Uh, yeah, nice name for your group, "guys"] said he has seen several dozen similar military weapons proposals, but this 1994 Air Force plan was the only one he knew about that specifically addressed an anti-gay weapon. He added, however, that the sentiment behind the proposed weapon is not uncommon in the military.

Several dozen similar proposals? I guess they are really running low on new ideas on how to kill people. Either that, or the people making these proposals don't get out much.

And shouldn't that be labelled a "pro-gay" weapon?

Steve Ralls, a spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), said, "It is a homophobic and delusional proposition for the Pentagon to assume a gay opponent is any less formidable than a straight one."

In support of his argument that gay opponents can be just as formidable as heterosexual ones, Rall submitted this evidence.

Gd1 Click to enlarge

I disagree with Rall on this one though. Gays don't do camouflage, and would assuredly change into uniforms that, while certainly up to date with current fashion trends, might not be so practical on the battlefield. It's also a known fact that most gays find blood "icky"

Ralls also said that the SLDN, which is fighting the U.S. military's ban on openly gay military personnel, would look into the matter and would consider asking Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to repudiate the proposal.

Ok, but, wasn't this proposal already rejected 10 years ago?

And what happens if our enemies get the gay bomb first? Has anyone thought of that? It was all fine and dandy when our soldiers came back from wars only missing limbs, but can you imagine the horror of them coming back gay?

And what if terrorists get a hold of the gay bomb? A few well-placed gay bombs in Texas and the South and the next thing you know Jarret Barrios is in the White House with the First Lady now being referred to as the "First Life Partner." The end of the American way of life as we know it (though professional wrestling, I suspect, won't lose any popularity).

On the bright side, however, a gay Pat Robertson would be quite amusing.   

Pat20r20pray (Don't fret none Patty, it only really hurts the first time)   

No comments: