There is, in fact, a perfectly reasonable explanation for the miltary's policy on homosexuals. The reason is this.

The military recognizes that effective unit cohesion and morale is a sina qua non of the armed forces. Years of experience have proven beyond all reasonable doubt that there certain elements that when present render military units ineffective. The elements include but are not limited to disease, famine, physical malady, injury, handicap, mental clarity, sense of duty, sense of allegiance. An additional element is that of sexual desire and sexuality.(realize I refer to sexual desire in the abstract, ie both hetero and homosexual desire, this in no way is intended to bash gays).

That element of sexual desire is why women have been separated from men in the military(specifically combat units). Some will say, no, it's because of differences in strength and other physical features. This is not so. For a certain female may posess greater endurance, strength, or other attributes than a given male. Indeed many women are superior to men when it comes to fkexibility and endurance and there smallker stature can actually preferable for certain military mission involving the need for stealth and surprise or to operate in confined areas. The differences in physicality are not inviolable and inexorable. What is absolute, however, is the conflict in sexual desire that males feel for females and vice versa and all the implications that has in terms of behavior, conscience, cohesion, morale and unit performance. The implications of sexual desire and its impact on the human animal and human behavior are so innate and omnipresent that its effect impact on a person's behavior are undeniable. Experience, therefore, has shown that it is best to not have a situation where members of a given military unit feel sexual desire towards one another.

That element of sexual desire must be wholly absent from the unit. Given that, it is clear why the military has a policy against homosexuals. It has nothing to do with any moral or value judgment on them as citizens or human beings. It is mere recognition of an inescapable anatom ical and biological truth. Homosexuals, by their very definition, feel sexual desire for their their own sex. It is a fact of life. All military combat units are male only, for the reason I explained above, the need to remove completely the presence of sexual desire among unit members. Since the military doesn't allow females who feel sexual desire towards males it must similarly preclude males who feel sexual desire towards males. The discrimination is based soley on the biological fact of sexual desire. It has nothing to do with a person. It's the same reason the military bars the physically handicapped, or the blind. It's because they, through no fault of their own and in now way compromising their character, are possessive of certain incurable and unremovable anatomical and biological facts and features as such that their inclusion in a given military unit renders it, in the experienced and well reasoned judgment of our military leaders, ineffective.

Again, as Michael Corleone would say "It's nothing personal, just Business". I would add that as the sexual desire element is the key factor it would be my view that in any unit where the military permits both male and female participation I think they should also allow homosexual participation. Although a compelling argument can still be made that as the vast, vast majority of all males in the military are heterosexual and as a good number of them may have certain moral objections to homosexuals and that presence of homosexuals in the unit would cause the heterosexual males great consternation and lead to lack of morale among the unit, the need to maintain exclusion is still necessary. Perhaps there could then be all homosexual units, or homosexual males+females units, or to have certain tasks only for homosexuals a la the Navajo codetalkers in WW2(perhaps translators could fall under this rubric).

I have no problems with the mliitary devising ways to accomodate and assimilate homosexuals in to the military. There's also a strong 1st amendment freedom of association claim on behalf of the mlitary. You may not agree with this but I think it is a perfectly logical and reasonale defense of the military policy of exclusion, and it is one that is not based on any fundamental or intrinsic dislike or hatred of gays. It is merely one that recognizes biological and human truth, and the need for the military to confront that truth if it is to be effective in its assigned duties.