You are under fire. The medic does not have time to change gloves--if he even has them on.
Now everyone who gets wounded is at risk of the same diseases as the gay guy if this man gets wounded at the same time.
If you know he is gay, does that mean he doesn't get help if he is wounded? ...which would be one reason to not place himself at risk as a heterosexual soldier might?
If there is no discrimination that way, are the other soldiers going to be less effective because they do not want to take a chance on getting wounded if the gay guy gets hit?
If anyone is sandbagging, there will be squabbles.
Whatever the scenario, unit effectiveness is reduced, the probability for internal conflict in what NEEDS to be a cohesive unit is enhanced.
And this is just one example.
I think you hit the perfect example.
It is also a reason why I tend to NOT believe these anecdotal stories about people "knew 'x' was a homosexual but they were good at their job and did not bother them."
I would imagine the code of military conduct REQUIRES the reporting of a homosexual upon discovery. If the officer did not report it and the reporting failure is later discovered then the "did nothing" officer would end their own carreer.
The only stories I have heard with any credibility involve the "overboard" scenario. Remember during the early clinton years when they had a naval stand down because there were a rash of "overboard" accidents just after this new policy was imposed?