their armed forces.271 While most OSCE participating States entitle gays and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces, several others still ban gays and lesbians from serving in the military on grounds such as unit cohesion and privacy. There are other countries that neither ban nor support gay and lesbian service members. In these countries, sexuality is considered a personal aspect of one’s identity that should not be subject to public scrutiny. This chapter explores different policies and attitudes towards gay and lesbian personnel in the armed forces. It underlines the main barriers facing homosexual service personnel in their military careers while proposing best practices for the integration of gays and lesbians in the military. It also deals with harassment, as well as with mechanisms and policies for promoting equality of all military personnel. Finally, this chapter addresses military culture in the armed forces as both a barrier and a solution to the problem of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the armed forces. In particular, it explains how training and awareness-raising among military commanders can contribute to promoting equal opportunities. 1. Issues at Stake As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, OSCE participating States take different approaches to accepting gays and lesbians as members of the armed forces. The central issue The central issue is that excluding gays and lesbians from military service violates the principle of equality both in terms of employment opportunities and in terms of citizenship. Because military service has historically been associated with citizenship, excluding lesbians and gays from the armed forces prevents them from fully enjoying their rights and duties as citizens. There are two standard arguments against admitting gays and lesbians to work in the armed forces, both of which are based on cultural beliefs instead of scientific proof or objective evidence: (1) homosexuality is a personality disorder; and (2) homosexuality is a threat to the operational effectiveness of the armed forces. First, those against admitting gays and lesbians to the armed forces argue that gays and lesbians suffer from a psychological disorder and, therefore, are not fit to work in the armed forces. However, according to an official statement of the American Psychiatric Association of as early as 1973, there is no medical or scientific proof for classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder or defect.272 The second major argument is that the presence of gays and lesbians in the armed forces would interfere with combat readiness and effectiveness by reducing troop cohesion, discipline, and morale. However, there have been no reports from the countries that have lifted their ban that the presence of lesbian and gay personnel in military units has compromised 271  The data collected by the ODIHR-DCAF questionnaire shows that gays and lesbians are allowed to serve in Belarus and Russia, whereas data collected by the International Lesbian and Gay Association shows that gays and lesbians are not allowed to serve in Belarus or in Russia. These discrepancies necessitate further research. See <www.ilga-europe.org>. 272  American Psychiatric Association, “Position Statement on Homosexuality and Civil Rights”, American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 131, No. 4, 1973, p. 497. For more information, see the website of the American Psychiatric Association at <http://www.psych.org/index.cfm>. Furthermore, see “Military Document suggests that Homosexuality is a Defect”, Michael D. Palm Centre, University of California, Santa Barbara, press release, 17 November 2006, available at <http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/ military_document_suggests_that_homosexuality_is_a_defect>. 130 Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel