Whenever people bring up the stock concerns about allowing homosexuals to actively serve in the military, the usual response is "they said similar things about racisl integration, and look how wrong they were!"
On the other hand, people also expressed concerns about the integration of females into the military (a much more comparable situation), and they were largely correct.
Of course, most people would assume that the fears there were irrational and that like the fears of racial integration, proved to be wildly overblown.
Of course, that is largely because the media mostly ignored stories that put sexual integration into a bad light, or at least ignored the sexual integration aspect of it, as noted by Steve Sailer:
However, democracy requires an active press. When the news media self-censors news stories about the downsides to lowering standards to accommodate women, we have less democracy and more mediacracy. The power of working women in newsrooms lead to a major coverup of news stories about, say, the problems caused by the sexual integration of the military: e.g., plane crashes, kinder-gentler boot camps, rampant pregnancies, the state of naval wives whose husbands come back from long cruises on co-ed ships the father of some seawoman's new baby, etc.
For at least the first half of the 90's these kind of stories were only regularly available in the Moonie-funded Washington Times.
That is all.