We need to reinstate Don't Ask, Don't Tell

What we agree onYou have done an excellent job in your response. There are many things that we agree upon, so let me start there. As I stated in my original argument "Let me first acknowledge that homosexuals Americans, like all Americans, are patriotic and love their country ". Let me also agree with your statement "Many gay soldiers have fought incredibly bravely".There is also no disagreement that "the problem with sexual assault is not caused directly by homosexuality but from problems with mental instability, lack of control of one"s emotions, uncontrolled anger, and hunger for power". I'm in full agreement with the two sources you cited regarding sexual assaults.https://www2.humboldt.edu......http://www.csom.org......These problems are not unique to homosexuals, they can and do also occur in Military situations where heterosexual men and women are in close quarters.What is interesting, but not especially relevant?I also have read about the "Sacred Band of Thebes". Like all military folklore, there is probably some truth as well as some exaggeration involved. If I wanted to be sarcastic I would point out as you did, that ultimately they died, which is not really the goal of the military, however, I am sure they fought bravely. In any event, I do not believe that you are proposing that we should form separate squads of composed of gay lovers, and I am not aware of any modern Military expert who is proposing this, so lets move on to the next point.We also agree on the numbersWe also agree on the number of sexual assaults, and the breakdown of male on male assaults, as well as male on female assaults. Both your sources as well as mine, site the original reports from the Department of Defense showing that 14,000 of the 26,000 reported assaults were male on male. I have copied the following directly from your media matters source."In May 2013, the Department of Defense released its "Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military" for fiscal year 2012 which found that 26,000 service members were victims of sexual assault that year, 14,000 of which were male and 12,000 female.What you failed to respond to More staggering than the Department of Defense figures, are those reported by the American Psychological Society. I have highlighted their findings below,"Male-on-male rape in the military is 15 times more prevalent than the Pentagon are reporting, according to a new study "" The report was released by the American Psychological Association " " The findings are based on responses of 180 anonymous combat veterans " " Pentagon's most recent report said 12,000 men reported being sexually assaulted, with almost 4,000 saying they had been raped" " But according to the studies rate, the true figure could be as high as 180,000 sexual assaults, including 60,000 rapes The American Psychological Association, is by no means a conservative organization. I am certain they would have liked for their findings to be more "gay friendly", but to their credit they reported their findings accurately. I would hope you would respond to their findings in your round three response.http://www.dailymail.co.uk......Why the "Don"t ask, Don"t tell" policy was necessary in the first place.In debate round two, I highlighted the problems that have occurred in the military since the repeal of don"t ask don"t tell. In this round I want to explain why the policy was necessary in the first place. The reason that the military established the long held policy that homosexuality is incompatible with military service is because they understood the problems associated with introducing sexuality into the military environment. The military, is a unique institution, where there is no room for sexual issues, they only distract from the mission. In the military you have men serving alongside other men, and women with women, in very close quarters, for long periods of time. This is true in boot camp, barracks, bunkers, ships and submarines, among other situations. They are together 24/7, sleeping along side each other and showering together, etc.It is not possible to turn off one's sexual desires at the door. In situations where people are attracted to the people they serve along side with, it is inevitable that sexual tensions, relationships, and assaults will occur. This is true of both heterosexuals and homosexuals.This is why they segregate the men from the women at basic training. They do not want the heterosexual soldiers to be distracted by sexual attractions, sexual tensions and sexual relationships that would occur if they trained together, share barracks, and showers etc. If heterosexual men and women shared the same barracks there would be an epidemic of male on female sexual assaults. However, the Military understands this, which is why they separate the men and women.When you mix sexuality into the military environment, the potential for problems is very real. One example of a problem would be when a commanding officer needs to make a decision to send a soldier into an especially dangerous situation; the commanding officer needs to make the best decision for the entire squad. However, if a commanding officer is in love with the man who he outranks, he cannot be expected to make an objective decision. Who would? I would not want to send the person I love into a dangerous situation.Another issue is what happens when two gays are in love, and then they break up, right at the time of an important mission? This type of drama is fine in civilian situations, but in in the Military, this is a distraction. These are just a few reasons why the Military in the past has correctly avoided mixing military service with sexual attractionIn addition to these problems, you add in the staggering amount of sexual assaults that have occurred in the Military by men on other men (see debate round 2), and you have enormous distractions to the basic Military mission of winning Wars.By its very definition, introducing homosexuals into an environment where they are attracted to other soldiers opens the door for all these problems.There is really no practical way to segregate gay men from the object of their desires. Having gay men serve alongside other men opens the door to all the sexual problems. Having them serve alongside women is impractical. This is why the Military established the ban on gays in the first place. All the problems that have occurred since the ban was lifted have shown that the original policy was appropriate and necessary. This is not meant to be a knock on homosexuals who love their Country; it is just a realization of the reality that sexuality and Military service do not mix.