¶ … 2001 the New York Times Magazine published an editorial by Andrew Sullivan entitled "Who's Being Shut Out of All the World War II Glory?" In it, Sullivan asked why historians (both in Washington and Hollywood) have ignored the contributions of gay soldiers, and links this to the current "don't ask, don't tell" policy that was resulting in an upsurge in sexuality-related discharges from the military. Shortly after this article was released, David Horowitz wrote a response article entitled "Why Gays Shouldn't Serve." Though Horowitz claimed that his article was designed to refute the "p.c. thinking" of Sullivan's article by arguing for "pragmatic" counterarguments, in reality he does not argue particularly about any of Sullivan's ideas of recognizing the past roles of gay individuals or relating those past experiences to the decisions of today. Rather he creates a practical argument which suggests that allowing homosexuals officially in the military would be counterproductive for the military's long-term goals. Though Sullivan and Horowitz have very different conclusions, and significantly different methods, they do have some elements in common which could theoretically allow the two authors (were the right arguments made) come to some agreement. Sullivan's argument suggests that there are monuments (both of the film and structure varieties) to the most diverse sorts of warriors, such as African-Americans, women, and even Japanese-Americans....

It seems that America today is recognizing the sacrifices of all those who fought for the country, except for gay individuals. He points out that there were many gays in combat in the Second World War, so much so that the military experienced a sort of "gay revolution" during this period. He suggests that it is time the public recognize the contributions made by homosexuals. This need for recognition he links to the number of gays removed from the military under the recent policy changes. He does not precisely argue for an inclusive military, but allows that argument to suggest itself from the egalitarian messages of asking for more recognition of past service and pointing out inequalities in today's treatment. Overall the message of his editorial is more about egalitarian recognition and treatment of gays than a cohesive call for policy change.
This is very different from Horowitz' position. Horowitz actually acknowledges that there should be more recognition for former homosexual soldiers. He also says that allowing openly gay people in the army would be bad not because homosexuals deserve to be discriminated against, but for the very simple reason that if there were homosexuals in the army that would introduce a factor of sex and individuality. This would, he then suggests, culminate in unreliable soldiers who might make poor decisions to protect their lovers. He, oddly, backs this up by evidence regarding how few…