2001 the New York Times Magazine Published

¶ … 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 women report for duty and how many get pregnant. Homosexuality, he suggests, does not deserve discrimination, but gay people should not be allowed to serve in the military where they might sleep with each other. (He also does not account, then, for why the military should disallow both gay men and all women, rather than allowing for straight men and gay women exclusively). Unlike Sullivan's argument, Horowitz in no way argues from an emotional perspective, and attempts to appeal to the logic of his readers.

One thing both articles have in common is a tendency to miss the point of their opponent. Sullivan never addresses the practical concerns that affect the position of gays in the military, apart from pointing out their past service records in America and other countries where they were out. Horowitz, on the other hand, does not address the validity of Sullivan's egalitarian argument (well, actually he admits that it is valid and then proceeds to argue a different point) and also does not deal with the issue that other nations have had some success with homosexuals in the military. He does address how women in combat have harmed unit cohesion, but admits that this is partly because men will sacrifice to keep women safe -- the chivalry of this has little to do with gays in the military.