I personally think politicians and army top brass must think so little of frontline troops that they think they will have a problem with gays.
This. The entire argument over the issue from the anti-gay side is elitist and derogatory (whether valid or not).
Elitism isn't always a bad thing on these subjects. The conservative argument in favor of DADT has been, basically, that the lowly grunt might have an issue with it. Implicit in this argument is the radically populist idea that the military ought to be a democracy.
I reject that argument. As in all things, the soldier serves with those whom he is told to serve with. His personal feelings matter not an iota in the scheme of things.
I agree with both of your points to some extent. Yes the radical populist element is a piece of the Conservative argument on the issue and is much more appealing a case to make in public. That doesn't preclude a certain elitism towards "those people" and their ability to adapt to change (ironic given the occupation the people in question perform) or deal with "the homos" from being present or even prevalent among certain pundits, commentators, or the politicos themselves who repeat such arguments.
Its up to others more in tune with the lower levels of the military to decide if such arguments hold water.
