Talk:Gay Bomb

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Did the 9/11 Commission investigate this? Perhaps if it had been funded in the Clinton era and dropped on Terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, 9/11 could have been prevented.

I smell coverup. Rob Smith 20:45, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Or the fact that the bomb didn't work.Maestro 23:44, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
It would have to be field tested before being combat tested, this generally is how U.S. weapons development has traditionally operated. Rob Smith 01:06, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
That is interesting RobS. I wouldn't be surprised if that lech did cover up this. Its definately a tragedy anyway. Boru 07:39, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't smell coverup at all...I smell stupid. If this "gay bomb" was a real intention, then it's another example of stupid ideas from certain elements of our armed forces, and they have done such in the past. Project Mogul was one, in which the theory was high-altitude balloons released in New Mexico could be devices to listen for Soviet stuff on the other side of the globe; the CIA's ESP experiments in the 1960's; the Sgt York anti-aircraft weapon (unlike the real York, this one couldn't aim!), and it goes on and on and on. And during this "gay bomb" thing, there was talk of loading bombs with pork fat and dropping them on the Moslem enemy; the theory behind that one would be that the Moslems would be ritually unclean as a result, lay down their arms, and immediately head for Mecca!

I think we should call the gay bomb for what it was: just another excercise in stupidity. Karajou 07:52, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

We know that gays infiltrated the military on Clinton's watch under "don't ask don't tell;" it's not surprising this idea was floated shortly thereafter. Rob Smith 12:42, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
Then it could very well be an idea used as nothing more than a tool to discredit someone. Karajou 12:50, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
There were gays in the Army before Clinton's watch. I was in the Army during the late 80's and I know there were gay service men then. Only thing was that back in the 70's and 80's there was much more violence in the military among soldiers so those that came out tended to have accidents.--Able806 15:23, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
According to my father, there were gays in the military in the 1960s. A guy he knew got caught and went to prison. Maestro 16:49, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
Right, I forgot. Just like those socially progessive Nazi's had gays, like Ernst Rohm. Clinton guided America down the trail of social progress that Hitler blazed 50 years earlier. Rob Smith 15:32, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
Er, the Nazis weren't exactly kind to the general homosexual population. I've visited the holocaust museums in DC, St. Louis, and Jerusalem, and some of the things the Nazis did to gays would make you sick. Rohm was an exception.Maestro 16:49, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
Two things, then I'll go back to listening. First, have the gays really "infiltrated" the military? Seems like I would have heard a lot more about it if a majority became gay overnight. Secondly, how would this bomb work? I know it's not PC to say that being gay is a choice, but if the "we're queer and we're here" crowd is wrong, then how would a bomb make them choose gayness? ItMathers 17:04, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
These are questions for greater minds than us to ponder. Rob Smith 15:49, 9 October 2007 (EDT)


Hey I just read this page, it seems to cross the boarder into homophobia, i think it might need removing.Realist2 10:04, 18 December 2007 (EST)

If this is the only 'homophobic' article you've found, then you must be new here.Maestro 13:12, 18 December 2007 (EST)
"Gay Bomb" has actually been deleted and recreated once already. And didn't you know that at one point, Gay Bomb was one of Conservapedia's most viewed articles? Feebasfactor 15:22, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Yeah im new, but im clever enough to see something that is offensive, i know gay people would be quit offended by this article, i know that conservapedia has an image it wants to give off, which i think it has every right to do, however i would like to think that no1 conservative, moderate or liberal would want to incite hatred? --Realist2 09:26, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Sorry to spoil that interesting notion, but there are no homosexuals on Conservapedia, and if they were to complain about us, they'd have far more material that this stub of an article. As a matter of fact, every single article on homosexuality in the site is horribly bias, and it's something I plan on fixing. However, I've never heard of an actual 'Gay Bomb' before, and I'd like some more evidence that this really exists, or perhaps it does deserve deletion. --YoungConservative 14:39, 4 February 2008 (EST)YoungConservative

This page seems to have been vandalized, but I don't really know how to go about fixing it. Just lettin' y'all know... Rockthecasbah 08:05, 19 March 2008 (EDT)


Given the numerous parody around here, does anyone but me think this is a joke? --JeanJacques 16:05, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Nevermind. Even BBC has it. I'm going to edit this to add more references so the people like me, going "huh????" will be able to show, yes, the US government military think tanks really are this stupid once in a Blue moon. Thank gods better heads prevail in our Military!--JeanJacques 16:09, 13 November 2008 (EST)
I would move this to a new article on strange or unrealistic weapons. The gay bomb, the pork bomb (a proposal to bomb enemy Muslims with pork fat, the theory being they would drop their weapons immediately and rush to Mecca), the Soviet "ape-man" all fall into that category. Karajou 16:25, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Wikipedia used to have a page for "bad jokes and other deleted nonsense". This could go there. --Ed Poor Talk 17:06, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Ed, why did you delete this? It is a real bomb, and kinda funny in a "we really thought that?" way. Maybe we can do what Karajou suggests and put it in a section with other "strange but true" articles?--JeanJacques 17:08, 13 November 2008 (EST) (edit conflict) Cept it's not a joke, it's real.

There is no evidence that a chemical can turn someone homosexual (or heterosexual). I'll restore if it someone wants to start a political humor page. --Ed Poor Talk 17:11, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Didn't Rob Smith create this page? HelpJazz 17:59, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Ed, I'd support reinstating this page too. It's a crazy idea to think about, turning a whole army gay, but it was a legitimately suggested (far-fetched) plan that is in the Pentagon's records. I also am not 100% sure that it's chemically impossible to do. If there are truth serums, why can't there be a gay serum? Not that I'd want it to fall in the wrong hands! -Foxtrot 03:13, 15 November 2008 (EST)
Largely because that implies there is some sort of chemical reason for "gayness", which I don't think has ever been shown. There are chemical inhibitors, and truth serums supress those in order to get the truth out. But I still agree that this article wasn't parody, or at least, it was about a true subject. HelpJazz 12:48, 15 November 2008 (EST)
I see it's been undeleted! (That's what I get for going through my watchlist in strict order). Joaquín wrote it, so it definitely wasn't started as parody. HelpJazz 13:02, 15 November 2008 (EST)
Great to see it undeleted. By the way, I agree that no chemical reason for "gayness" has been shown -- if there is one (which I doubt), a discovery is probably way off. However, thinking scientifically (gasp!), I don't think the evidence has been ruled out that in some high quantities a theoretical serum could cause everyday, respectable people to have temporary, uncontrollable urges. These just may be hypersexualized urges, but if the people are in a single sex situation (such as an army), these urges could be misdirected to the wrong sex. I'm just rambling, but I guess I can see where the Pentagon people got the idea from. There are unfortunately some very sinister ways of controlling or influencing the brain, and I'd be happier if such a serum never, ever gets created. -Foxtrot 16:02, 15 November 2008 (EST)