It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:02 PM

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by halfoldman

The idea, was the troops of the opposition would be attracted to each other, and cause disharmony.
thats the point of what they wanted.

However, it's all not exactly described.
I mean look how long it took them to realize since 1994 that being gay has nothing to say on whether you are a professional soldier or not (and that is probably still not accepted by all segments of the US military).
So the people who conceived this must have had other stigmas attached to being "gay".
I somehow doubt they just meant the enemy unit would just have a quick roll in the sand.
In line with Moral Majority influences at the time (reaching into the Bush dynasty's world-view) some idiot conflated gay sex with "weak" moral and professional behavior.
Gay sex=gay character (which was considered weak, cowardly, feminized, diseased, decadent...)
Well, that's one way I could interpret it now, because those stereotypes were there (especially when AIDS was linked to gays and still a death sentence).

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:23 PM
reply to post by halfoldman

I havent done the research on this so others can confirm or deny for themselves... but I doubt that anyone likes to consider that some of the greatest people in our history were homosexual or bisexual. This really throws the "gay bomb" theory out of the window.
Just an FYI.. I am a mom who likes to teach my kids all sides of a subject and then allow them to use their own critical thinking skills to decide for themselves. Ive found that when presented with ALL of the information with no censorship that would reflect my personal views, children are intensely perceptive... thank God. Id looked these things up a while ago and it really even shocked me. I was really a "ewwww dirty weird queers" person in my youth.. I DID grow up and realized that sexuality does NOT define a person and stereotypes do nothing but push into the whole BS group think we should be fighting against. ANyway, check it out:

These are just a few.. please view the link to see the rest and then you can go from this place to do your own research. WHen I looked into it I DID see some possible incorrect inlusions on the list, but this was hte bes tone Id found all in one place at the time:

Alexander the Great
*Macedonian Ruler, 300 B.C.
*Greek Philosopher, 400 B.C.
*Greek Woman Poet, 600 B.C.
*Roman Emperor, 1st-2nd c.
Richard the Lionhearted
*English King, 12th c.
*Sultan of Egypt and Syria
Desiderius Erasmus
*Dutch Monk, Philosopher
Francis Bacon
*English statesman, author
Frederick the Great
*King of Prussia

Im no great gay or homo apologist .. I just truly believe that stereotypes destroy us and I want ALL people to enjoy freedom and not only a select or chosen type, race, or etc. ABsurd ideas like the GAY BOMB really show how we are still primitive in our thinking as a society and a people IMO. The gay bomb BS wasnt long enough ago to call it :"history" and attempt to distance ourselves from such ridiculous things.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:19 PM
reply to post by Advantage

Thank you for that insight, and info on gay warrior history!
However, I suppose, even here the homophobes would have an explanation.
There were two types of homosexuals: the weak fems, and the psychopathic macho types.
This was proposed around the time of the "bomb" experiment by Scott Lively (, a co-author of the 1996 publication: The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party.
This homophobic revisionist text proposed that Hitler was gay, and the butch gays oppressed the fem gays under Nazism.
Of course it was all nonsense, as one discovers if one Googles The Annotated Pink Swastika.
Basically it's putting gay men into a position where they can't win with any argument.
If we were good warriors we were psycho, if we were pacifists we were weak.

It's all very horrible.
With SA academics there was also the debate about Shaka Zulu. (

edit on 20-1-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-1-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:30 PM
that was so funny at the begining. i realy cant believe this i still want to laugh but i cant. next 1 will be the boner bomb u cant fight with a stiffy right?

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:47 PM
reply to post by Terms777

At any point in the video I was expecting Ashton Kutcher to pop out and be all like "OH YEAH! YOU JUST GOT PUNKED!"
...I can't believe this was even proposed as a viable solution to non-lethal warfare.
edit on 20-1-2011 by freedish because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:59 PM
Well, if it makes men gay and fem, God help them if they chuck it on the women.
By any stereotype they're gonna get their asses kicked, and then some!
This is LESBIA!!!

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 06:08 PM
reply to post by halfoldman

I've always argued for a gay and lesbian state, and one thing I've never worried about is gay people fighting as warriors to defend it.
That includes men, women and inter-sex people.

edit on 20-1-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:28 PM
reply to post by halfoldman

But humor, and fantastic debate, and speculation aside.
Why do we only hear this now?
Gay people are already suffering because of culture clashes.
Won't this become another cause to attack gay and lesbian people in homophobic countries?
They are the product of a "US bomb".
Sitting on the tip of largely homophobic continent, that concept makes me very afraid for gay people.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:21 PM
inadvertent detonation?

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:26 PM
Thread Closed.

No one wanted to talk seriously about this subject.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in