Exactly what is it about homosexuals that sends certain heterosexual people reeling? I can't say that the homosexual act itself is relevant to a straight person, after all why would any heterosexual person care what happens in a gay persons bedroom? I guess I should ask the millions of heterosexual males who love watching two lipstick lesbians get it on, right? Not really, because lesbians don't actually look or behave that way. Do they? I don't know because none of them have ever invited me to watch them, "Do it!" I guess that is the point. Isn't it? The fact is that a gay person's sexual life is no less private than a heterosexual persons sex life and in that regard it is no actual "threat" to any heterosexual. This is the argument anyway for repealing DADT, that there is no actual reason for withholding ones own sexuality from the official record of Americas armed forces. That such an act goes against a persons civil liberties to be themselves and serve effectively.
But how much of that is actually relevant to that straight person who feels violated every time someone of his same gender looks at him in what could be interpreted as the "wrong way?" Is it a comfort somehow to him that this other person is now living out in the open to the full extent of his civil liberties? "But, that's his problem." some might say because he is being homophobic. It's an illogical product of his prejudiced mind. Is it? Let's find out how irrational this thought process is by comparing it to another well established sex related barrier, the public bathroom. Traditionally, because there are now exceptions, this place of evacuatory solace, the public bathroom, has been strictly segregated by gender in America, even as far back as we have had indoor plumbing . Why is this? Certainly one can see that a female's sensibilities, if not the male's, must be protected in this regard; otherwise why perpetuate such an archaic cultural standard?
The fact is that people don't want someone else to watch them when they are exposed, especially someone whom could potentially see them in a sexual way and that is the point of those heterosexual's whom find the idea of an "out" homosexual watching them disturbing. With DADT in place that heterosexual can live in peaceful oblivion, secure in his delusion that nobody is watching him in a sexual manner. His logic does not extend to paranoia, meaning "I wonder who is gay? Is that guy looking at me because he fancies me?" This to him is not necessary. DADT is enough! So then, what about gay republicans or dry showers for that matter? Why is either of them significant to this topic. As I see it a a gay republican is just like that heterosexual male because both have a very private fear. Neither want to be at odds with their peers. Both want to hide their realties and neither want to own up to the facts.
What are the facts? The facts are that in a military setting peer support is next in importance to life itself. A soldier needs to know that he is not alone out there. A gay republican is alone because he is an aberration to his party. A heterosexual soldier who can't trust another soldier is in the same position. Repealing DADT is in essence not enough. No DADT means gay soldiers can openly serve. It does not mean soldiers now have well defined boundaries. A work place has Sexual harassment laws to define inappropriate behavior, similarly the military has laws to guide relationships between male and female soldiers. So where are the laws that will define when someone has crossed the line in a homosexual advance? We can't as a society give rights to some by taking away the rights of others. Do that and it will lead many service men and women to leave the military and even many more potential recruits from never joining at all. The end result being a less effective military which is a lot worst than the dry shower stalls that will be left.