The definition of homosexual behavior does not require love and/or reciprocity!
You are going to drive the guys in our data analysis and statistics unit completely crazy. (a short drive, I admit)
While I am admitting that you have a point, using a behavior-only approach to determine someone's sexuality leads to problems. Is the aforementioned rapist to be labelled as homosexual from now on? (what if it was "rape by instrumentation>?) And if HE is now to be labelled homosexual, what about a (previously) homosexual man who engages in a heterosexual act? Is he straight from now on?
Most "experts" in the field will agree that rape is not a desire-linked crime, but a violence and power-linked crime anyway.
I would think that the whole gays-in-the-military issue would apply to men who are gay most of the time, rather than to part-time homosexual rapists.
My original point was that the men who committed "homosexual" atrocities in Iraq were probably "previously heterosexual". They probably still think of themselves (however wrongly) as heterosexual.
Our armed forces are obviously NOT trained to be a band of rapists, but rather to be honorable defenders of our liberty. It seems obvious that no rapist (gay or otherwise) belongs in our armed forces. Connecting the issues of rape in the military and gays in the military just clouds the issue(s).