The issue of gays in the military is not an easy one.  As the article above notes, there are many different opinions on subject.  One touched upon was the effect it would have on a unit's cohesiveness.  It would take a blow, no doubt, but I serve in a combat arms unit (Armor which is tanks and reconnaissance) and I can honestly say that the unit would overcome that initial shock and perform their duty, as a team, when called upon to do so.  Soldiers learn through their training that they must rely on one another in order to accomplish a mission.  I have been in units where there are ethnic and social differences between the men (this is not a sexist remark, for those not familiar with the Army a tank battalion or cavalry squadron is predominately male).  And while there was friction between them in the early stages of coming into a new unit, after several weeks and/or months of training together they began to work as a cohesive team.  I cannot say their prejudices disappeared, but they learned to work through them.

The bigger problems, in my opinion would lie with the other units (located on the same post or forward operating base, FOB) and those units' Soldiers' opinions of the gay Soldier.  They obviously wouldn't know that Soldier as well those in his squad, platoon, or company, and would be more inclined to give him or her a hard time.  They may be the ones that pose a greater threat, which is something the military leadership will have to address.  The homosexual Soldiers' safety and integration into units may be one of the biggest, if not biggest, problems with removing the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy.  Do I believe they should be placed in separate units or housed in different barracks?  No.  This is not the 1940s when units were formed base on race.  They are, or will be, Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, and Marines and deserve the honor that comes along with it, serving alongside their countrymen in the defense of the nation.

On the other hand, I can understand the resistance coming from those currently serving and those who have served.  My father served 24 years in the Army, and two of his brothers and father also served 20 or more years, and I have heard the same responses from all of them.  We, as human beings, are naturally resistant to change and all the branches of the Armed Forces have been operating under the rule that gay men and women cannot serve.  So the resistance to change is natural, however the military has systems in place to deal with resistance to change.  

Do I believe it is right or wrong for homosexual men and women to serve?  Honestly it doesn't matter what I believe on the topic, because it is not in my lane.  As I said, I am a Cavalryman not a policy maker.  Let those above me work out the details so us on the ground can execute with little distractions.   As a Soldier we take an oath to follow the orders of those appointed over us and execute.  Those that do not, well they have the choice to decide to re-enlist when their time is up, and abide by any policy changes, or opt to receive an honorable discharge and take the skills they learned and apply them in the civilian market.  I do not, however, believe that a Soldier should be allowed to quit because he doesn't like the idea of working alongside homosexuals.  Odds are that he or she will be working alongside one in the civilian world.  The argument of showers and living arrangements in the barracks are just excuses.

Gays belong in one place, the closet!

Unless one has served in the military, one shouldn't even begin to comment on the rights or wrongs of allowing gays to openly serve in the military. While serving in the U.S. Army, myself and many of those whom I served with, would have been absolutely appalled at the thought of knowing that the person sharing the foxhole or shower with them were gay. If there was anyone in my unit who happened to be gay, it was never known, and for good reason. Friendly fire had a certain  way discouraging a person to admit they were homosexual.