Recent comments in /f/Queer

emma wrote

could volunteering while openly gay perhaps not be seen as working to change that organisation and the people within it?

No, it's called being a bootlicker. Pete is counting on his wealth to protect him from anti-queer sentiment in organisations he supports, much like Peter Thiel supporting Trump.

5

avbeav wrote (edited )

Sorry, but I am unsure what to think of this.

If this organisation has a history of denying LGBTQ people their rights, could volunteering while openly gay perhaps not be seen as working to change that organisation and the people within it? It could potentially create a useful precedent, say when one member claims that SA don't support gay rights, other members can point to Pete's volunteering.

I guess part of that question is whether we expect SA to stop discriminating, or whether we expect them to just stop existing.

3

debored wrote

Am I the only one that gets annoyed with the "it's not a choice!" defense? I don't get why people want to give up all agency over sexual desire just to appease reactionaries. Chick-fil-A can fuck off whether it's a choice or not.

That argument probably has something to do with human rights law, right? Like in order for it to be analogous with gender discrimination it has to be biological or completely out of your control.

6