I'm not saying that our current servicemen and women are great in upholding moral standards, but this is a start. Why push morals? Because it's civilized. Individualism, progressivism, and identity politics should not have place in our armed forces. Their focus should be to serve our country, and not themselves.
Your question is a typically leading, thinly veiled defense of forced acceptance of homosexuality. The reason for excluding homosexuals within the military is not to prevent discomfort of heterosexuals. Is there anything about fighting to the death in combat which lends itself to comfort? The argument against this type of thing in the military, or any other setting for that matter, does not stem from discomfort of those not afflicted with the disorder.
The military needs good, strong, dedicated people.
To say that this kind of discomfort should just be accepted, instead of worked around, is downright foolish. You may as well use the same excuse for having women in the military, or for having people of different colours be allowed to join. Simply makes no sense.
Plato said that the best army was an army of gay lovers. Straight loyalties are often divided between their brothers & sisters on the field & their lovers and families at home, gays are more likely to bond with their military family and less likely to leave orphans and widows behind. The best warriors of their generation are often gay: King David, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Richard the Lionhearted. A soldier who doesn't understand the natural, instrinsic value of gay warriors has failed to study history: at least as much as to the straight, the battlefield has always belonged to the queer.