What, Who, and the Inevitable Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

I've read with interest the diverse opinions people have about the inevitable repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I find it intriguing how so much focus is placed on who and what this is about. For example, some might say:

During a combat situation, "the last thing that one would want then and there is a romantic attachment between any of those men, even if it is unexpressed in overt sexual conduct." (emphasis added)

Now substitute the emphasized phrase in that statement as follows:

During a combat situation, the last thing that one would want then and there is a romantic attachment between any of those men and women, even if it is unexpressed in overt sexual conduct.

The only difference in the two statements is who is involved. Excuse me, but during a combat situation lives are at stake. Sex and romance should be furthest from anybody's mind. I would agree that the last thing people should be thinking about is the romantic interest or sexual attraction between any two people.

In the wake of an increase of sexual assault reporting -- presumably among heterosexual people -- should heterosexual women be allowed to serve if men fear that they will be sexually attracted to the men, and vice versa? Is unit cohesion only an issue when politically unpopular groups are involved? Does it make sense to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation within military ranks?

Hundreds of military careers have been destroyed since this discriminatory policy was enacted; destroyed for no apparent reason. To focus on the "what" and "who" is to miss the point of the need to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.