In Yasmin Nair's post, "Today We Are Not Celebrating: Don't Ask to Fight Their Wars," she argues that "not all us queer and trans folk were banging on the doors of the war machine begging to be rainbow colored cannon fodder." Fellow contributor Don Sherfick weighed in with two comments I'm combining into one because they flow together nicely.
Just to make it clear then, Yasmin, you would not have supported LGBT participation in responding to the Japaneese Attach on Pearl Harbor? Are you an absolutist on this or do you have some kind of reasonably framed criteria (understandably presuming against any LGBT military involvement) that would allow for some exceptions?
I fully understand the ambivalence that most pacifist-leaning folks have in this area, be they for religious (eg: Mennonite) or ideological/political/other (eg: LGBT) reasons.
What I do have is a problem with the idea that simply being LGBT automatically has to be in lock-step witth being anti-military. There is a least some role, in my opinion, for uniformed service in a defensive and protective posture. Otherwise if hoards of people from elsewhere screaming "death and destruction to the faggots and the trannies" come from air, land, sea, from cyberspace or wherever, what's the answer? Hopefully it is something more than a Rodney King look-alike waving a rainbow flag at them and saying "can't we all just get along?".
What are your thoughts, Projectors? Is war justified? Now that LGB people are allowed to serve openly, should they?