The increased prevalence of HIV among gay men could simply preclude homosexuals from donating blood on the battlefield, except in conditions of extreme emergency. This is how I would refute the author's argument that the potential of HIV transmission through emergency battlefield transfusion should be reason to forbid the "homosexualization," as he calls it, of the military.

His transfusion issue is the closest thing he has to a reasonable argument. Second closest is his point that a small percentage of soldiers claim they wouldn't reinlist if the military were "homosexualized." "Second closest" doesn't mean it isn't a stupid argument, though. If we use this sort of survey to tell us how to create our military, we would also need to ask how many soldiers would not reinlist if blacks are not immediately categorically thrown out of the service. After all, conservatives were the dead set against the "Negroization" of the military before the "threat" of military "homosexualization" reared its head.

The author obviously did actually try to make a coherent case against gays in the military, but he clearly failed. His real accomplishment was to demonstrate that no matter how hard one tries, the position aganst gays in the military remains indefensible.