Horowitz also fails to address the institutional weaknesses inherent in the military's hypocritical discrimination. Not allowing gay men to serve openly, but allowing them to serve closeted, makes absolutely no sense from a logical, "real world" standpoint. Unless, of course, one is inordinately afraid of the gay man, a condition called "homophobia." Of course, once words like that get thrown around, apologists like Horowitz start talking about "the real world" as if it were an excuse for denying gay men equal rights.

After all, aren't gays already serving in all four of the armed service branches? What would change? Would there suddenly be romances complete with heart-shaped boxes of chocolate and flowers on the front? Given the "killing machine" mentality of the armed forces, it hardly seems likely that allowing gays to openly and honorably serve their country would result in endless missions botched, wars lost and free republics enslaved because of a few thousand crying sissies who suddenly fell in love and could no longer follow orders or fight capably.

That's the worst thing about Horowitz's article: It pretends to take the high road, sneering at the failure of the politically correct idiots to take "real life" into account, while at the same time it insinuates that gay men are incapable of the same honor, stoicism and intelligence that straight men possess. Horowitz denies the reality that gay men have not compromised missions in any greater numbers than have straight men. Instead, he falls back on the same old tired stereotypes in an attempt to justify what he admits is blatant discrimination. Gay men, at least, don't go around impregnating female soldiers or sexually harassing them. Nor are straight men, one presumes, tempted to impregnate gay men.

	Print story E-mail story

So what's the problem?

-- Andrew Roth

Horowitz argues that sexual relationships between gay men within the ranks could reduce military cohesion and response. However, he ignores the fact that, even if he is correct, current policy allows this problem to fester under the radar. Gays in the military now presumably form relationships, but those relationships are "in the closet." Therefore, the sub rosa nature of the relationships prevents the military from preventing this danger.

If gays were allowed to openly serve in the military, then individuals could be prohibited from having relationships with others in their unit. That would solve Horowitz's argument without barring individuals who are willing to sacrifice their lives for the good of their country from participating in the armed forces.

I do appreciate Horowitz for trying to actually make an argument in favor of exclusion, but like most critics on this point he fails to recognize that gays are serving and that it is a disservice for our nation to turn a blind eye toward them.

-- Michael Dickler

I am interested in purchasing the film rights to Horowitz's fact-filled article. The hellish story of two gay lovers single-handedly collapsing the Great American Army with their cohesion-busting sexual passion is one I'm convinced the whole world would pay big money to see.

Imagine the havoc they'll wreak kissing on the battlefield! The horror as they turn their love-struck backs on their fellow soldiers when the chips are down! Oh, what deliciously powerful villains they'll make! For the climactic courtroom scene in which the lovers are finally brought to justice, tell him I promise to portray their whiny weapon of choice as "political correctness." Audiences will root and cheer their demise, for the world well knows that compassion is futile, equality is for sissies and change is impossible.

Oh, and if you would, ask him to forward the names of any actual soldiers his hypothesis might be based on. I would love to secure their rights too.

-- John Rodgers

Salon Politics: Unflinching daily political news, analysis and commentary.