This is a hot button issue lately and I suppose begs a post.
There certainly seems no reason to me to keep DADT in place in to in any way differentiate between homosexual soldiers and straight ones (outside of the mundane). Any rule that is aimed at homosexual soldiers is by definition discriminatory. There simply does not appear a valid reason for keeping DADT or an even more restrictive rule in place. There is also evidence from other countries that homosexuals serving openly in the military does not adversely affect morale or effectiveness.
DADT is by definition discriminatory. Countries that have opened the ranks are not adversely affected. What reasons remain for keeping any restrictive rules on military personnel that happen to be homosexual?
Many in the military have said there will be huge problems for those currently serving if openly homosexual soldiers are allowed to serve. This is a very important argument. We cannot simply ignore the reservations, emotions, and worries and the thousands (if not millions?) of those currently serving. I do not believe, however, that it should have any bearing on whether homosexuals should serve or not. Where it DOES matter is how the inclusion of homosexual soldiers is put into effect--the logistics of an integrated military.
The best analogy I can think of for this issue is the segregation and later integration of blacks in the military. There were many similar arguments for maintaining a segregated military. At the end of the day, however, it simply was not the right thing to do. The white-male military had to "deal with it" and "get over it." It is in this "dealing" and "getting over" that I think is the most delicate part of the process and requires the most care in addressing the opinions of those currently serving.