Oxford college flies university’s "first-ever rainbow flag"

November, 23, 2011

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/11/23/oxford-college-flies-first-ever-rainbow-flag-above-university/
An Oxford University college has flown the rainbow flag above a campus building for the first time in its history.
Wadham College hosts the annual Queerfest, a party which celebrates gay history and culture, and raises awareness for LGBT rights.
In recent years this has been preceded by Queerweek, a collection of talks, discussions and social events.
While the 2011 Queerweek celebrations, which began on the 14 November, saw the lights in the college’s front quad turned pink, organisers sought a more visible display to people outside the college.
Queerweek organiser Michael Brooks, 19, a Philosophy and German undergraduate, told PinkNews.co.uk the reaction from the university and the city has been positive.
Brooks agreed on the idea of raising a flag among the city’s spires with the other event organiser, Sarah Pine, before approaching university authorities.
He said: “We discussed it with the college Dean and then it went through to Governing Body. Everyone responded really positively to the idea and we ended up flying the rainbow flag over Wadham for an entire week.
“Putting up the flag was such a simple thing to do, but it had a huge effect on Oxford. I heard many people from different colleges talking about it. I saw tourists stopping outside Wadham to take photos of it.
“It challenges the stereotypes people have of Oxford and I hope that it will make those within Oxford who do hold very conservative views concerning LGBTQ rights to think differently.
“I was speaking to one student about the rainbow flag and he told me that he was surprised that the ‘powers-that-be’ at Wadham allowed us to fly the flag. I think that this shows that other Oxford colleges do not offer enough support to their LGBTQ community and it’s time for that to change.
Ross Brooks, the author of Oxford’s LGBT city guide Queer Oxford, said he was “stunned and delighted” to have seen the rainbow flag over a university building.
He told PinkNews.co.uk: “For centuries, LGBT culture has been integral to life here in Oxford although it has not always been acknowledged and appreciated.
“It was heartwarming to see Oxford University celebrating diversity in the community so proudly and publicly.”
He added the college was the scene of a notable gay scandal.
The author said: “On 3rd February 1739, Robert Thistlethwayte, Doctor of Divinity and infamous Warden of Wadham, attempted to seduce William French, a commoner of the College.
“The ensuing scandal shook the University to its foundations. Thistlethwayte’s career at Oxford was ruined – he fled to France – but he was immortalised in several delightful limericks which have been uttered here in Oxford ever since the 1730s.”
One of the mentioned rhymes runs:

There once was a Warden of Wadham Who approved of the folkways of Sodom, For a man might, he said, Have a very poor head But be a fine Fellow at bottom

While the flag was first used by the LGBT community in the 1970s, it is believed this is the first official gay symbol to be displayed since teaching began on the university’s site in the 11th century.

Hungarian health authority says human dignity of trans pharmacist has to be respected

Budapest, November 24, 2011 – In its recent decision on appeal the Hungarian Office of Health Authorization and Administrative Procedures has ordered the Office of the Chief Medical Officer of State to issue a new pharmacy license to a trans pharmacist that does not contain reference to her birth name and gender. The authority agreed with the applicant that revealing her transgender status in such official documents is a violation of human dignity.

The applicant was born male, completed a degree in pharmaceutical sciences and became a head pharmacist in the Hungarian countryside while still being officially male. In 2011 she changed her gender and started replacing her documents to reflect her new name and gender. While she had no problem obtaining a new diploma, when requesting an amendment to her pharmacy license she met an obstacle. The Office of the Chief Medical Officer of State would only issue a new license that contained both her birth name and her new name and thus the new license would have revealed to everyone that she had undergone gender reassignment.

The applicant turned to the legal aid service of Háttér Support Society for LGBT People who helped her put together an appeal. The appeal argued that forcing a trans person to out herself every time she has to show her pharmacy license was an unacceptable breach of human dignity and privacy, and given the transphobic social attitudes in Hungary it would expose the applicant to higher level of discrimination. In the appeal procedure the Hungarian Office of Health Authorization and Administrative Procedures shared the applicants concerns that the amended license containing both her birth name and her new name was a breach of human dignity and ordered the Office of the Chief Medical Officer of State to issue a new pharmacy license that does not contain reference to the applicant’s birth name.

The case shows very well the uncertainty and vulnerability of people undergoing gender reassignment in Hungary due to the lack of legislation on gender recognition. While in other countries such legislation clarifies the data protection principles that authorities, employers and service providers have to follow, due to the lack of such legislation in Hungary trans persons have to rely on the benevolence of individual clerks.

TBH: AN UNHEARD VOICE IN EDUCATION: A teacher writes . . . 'I was lectured on my sexuality'

The Irish Times, Tuesday, November 22, 2011

I write as one of a large group of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) people who works as a primary teacher in a Catholic school in this country. Given my sexual orientation (about which I am open) I am subjected to the following on a daily basis.

I must participate in and teach a religion I don’t believe in. I must uphold the Catholic ethos of the school by not discussing my sexuality beyond close friends on the staff.

As the teachers’ representative on the board of management I must partake in prayers at the start of each meeting, which goes against my own belief system.

A few years back when my school principal became aware of my sexuality I was given a lecture about not publicly promoting my sexuality. I have not been successful in applying for any promotion since. I should be first in line because I am the most senior teacher in the school and I hold a Masters of Education degree. I have regular visits from the local priest to keep an eye on how I am teaching religion. No other teacher in the school gets these “visits”.

Most of my fellow teachers are not regular mass-goers. Their lives do not all fall into the norms of Catholicism when it comes to marriage. Yet they are not singled out like I am. The INTO have been sympathetic, but I was told that the school is not breaking any rules by enforcing religious practise on me or curtailing my freedom to discuss my life in the staffroom. They advised that I do not rock the boat.

I believe I am an excellent teacher. I want to live in Ireland and teach generations of our children. However, the only schools within a 50-mile radius of my home are Catholic. Even if I left this part of the country I would still have to find a position within a very limited pool of non-Catholic schools – less than 10 per cent nationwide. I have to accept daily prejudice to pay my mortgage and other life expenses.

I believe, as in most countries, the Government should run the schools with religion as an optional after-school extra at the discretion of each faith. This would be fairer for everyone, not just for teachers like me whose sexual orientation is at odds with the ethos of the school. It would be fairer for children from families of other religions and none, fairer for Catholic families who believe in a more inclusive Ireland and fairer for the many teachers who are obliged to teach a subject they are not comfortable with. I don’t believe such a system would discriminate against Catholics. They would be free to practise their faith in an organised way after school and at weekends. My only hope is that the Minister for Education now follows through with his plan to have more schools handed over to non-religious boards of management.

This column is designed to give a voice to those within the education system who wish to speak out anonymously.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/education/2011/1122/1224307943611.html

Bible: Hebrew text homo-friendlier than christians admit

At 21:28 2004.02.09, Roger wrote:

... we shall stage our first public enactment of the Eastern Church's adelphopoiesis ceremony for uniting same-sex couples. We'll include the Catholic Ordo ad Fratres Faciendum too

        The Hebrew Old Testament doesn't prescribe marriage ceremonies:  but does acknowledge gay couples. --

         www.homosexualeunuchsandthebible.com/id7.html

In the Bible, God nowhere set up statu[t]es for a priest to marry couples. In fact, any couple that was in a long lasting relationship was considered married. Generally, when it says a man married a woman, the Hebrew word used says the man took the woman.
        ...
The Bible does record a verse that shows that not all unions were between a man and a woman: “If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or your lawful wife, or your friend, who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which you have not known, you nor your fathers;” (Deuteronomy 13:6 Lamsa). [*] The underlined words your friend, who is as your own soul in the Aramaic literally means: “your lover according to your soul [emotion(s)].” The word rakh-ma, translated here as “friend,” also means a loved one (in a relationship), as shown here: “His mouth is like sweet honeycombs; his garments are lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.” (Song of Solomon 5:16 Lamsa).


At 22:14 2008.06.22, Mike wrote:

Well, for your information,  Leviticus says (pretty much the same in both verses that appear to condemn homosexuality), "And with a male do not lie sexually in the beds of a woman" - ie, it is a conditional statement, with both clause and condition, the condition being that you shouldn't do it in the beds of a woman - and that is the only restriction. ...

         www.homosexualeunuchsandthebible.com/id10.html
        Confirms this view of Leviticus[*], explaining that the Hebrew mish-che-be in Leviticus 18,22 and Leviticus 20,13 is "beds" [plural], and that "the 'beds of a woman' may be referring to a practice which still occurs in some parts of Libya. A married couple has three beds: the man's bed, the woman's bed and the marital bed. So, the beds of a woman would be her bed and the marital bed" ... leaving a husband free to entertain a male partner in his own bed.


         www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B03C018.htm#V22
        Leviticus 18,22 uses MShKBY ...

         www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B03C020.htm#V13
        and Leviticus 20,13 uses MShKBY too.


[*] -- King James Version

Leviticus 18
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Deuteronomy 13
6 ¶If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

Beyond gay and straight

After 40 years of gains on homophobic law repeal, is there any more
need for a separate identity?

By Peter Tatchell, human rights campaigner

Today’s gay pride parade in London celebrates 40 years since the
formation of the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) in Britain. This was a
watershed moment in British queer history. For the first time,
thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender  (LGBT) people
stopped hiding in the closet and suffering in silence. I was one of
them. We came out and marched in the streets, proclaiming gay pride
and demanding our freedom.

This had never happened before. In 1970, many LGBT people were ashamed
of their homosexuality and kept it secret. Some wished they were
straight and went to doctors to get ‘cured’.

This internalised homophobia was not surprising. Forty years ago, the
state branded homosexuality as unnatural, indecent and criminal; the
church condemned LGBT people as immoral, wicked and sinful; and the
medical profession classified us as sick, abnormal and disordered.

LGBT people were sacked from their jobs, evicted from flats, refused
service in pubs, arrested for kissing in the street and had their
children taken from them by the courts. There was no legal protection
against such discrimination. It was lawful.

The Gay Liberation Front was the first major challenge to this
heterosexism. Inspired by the Black Power slogan “Black is Beautiful”,
it proclaimed "Gay Is Good." Back then, it was very radical to suggest
there was anything good about being gay. Most people thought queers
were mad, sad and very, very bad.

Even liberal-minded heterosexuals often supported us out of sympathy
and pity. Many reacted with horror when GLF declared: “2-4-6-8! Gay is
just as good as straight!” Those assertive, affirmative words – which
were so empowering to queers everywhere – frightened the life out of
smug, arrogant straight people, who had always assumed they were
superior.

GLF’s rebellion against heterosexual supremacism kick-started a still
on-going revolution in public opinion, laws and cultural values. It
overturned the conventional wisdom on matters of sex and human rights.
Our joyous celebration of gayness contradicted the uptight straight
morality that had ruled the world for centuries and which had
oppressed heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.

While most politicians, doctors, priests and journalists saw
homosexuality as a social problem, GLF said the real problem was
society’s homophobia. Instead of seeking to justifying our existence,
we demanded that the gay-haters justify their bigotry.

GLF's unique style of ‘protest as performance’ was not only incredibly
effective, but also a lot of fun. Christian morality campaigner Mary
Whitehouse had her Festival of Light rally in Central Hall Westminster
invaded by a posse of gay nuns. They staged a kiss-in when one of the
speakers, Malcolm Muggeridge, disparaged homosexuals, saying “I just
don’t like them.” The feeling was mutual.

There were also more serious acts of civil disobedience to confront
the perpetrators of discrimination. We organised freedom rides and
sit-ins at pubs that refused to serve ‘poofs’ and ‘dykes’. I disrupted
a lecture by the eminent psychologist, Professor Hans Eysenck, when he
advocated the use of electric-shock aversion therapy to ‘cure’
homosexuality.

In the 40 years since GLF, queer people have become more visible than
ever before and most of the public are relaxed about same-sex
relationships. All major homophobic laws have been repealed, apart
from the ban on same-sex civil marriage. Positive images of LGBT life
abound on television. Politicians and entertainers are openly gay. The
police are serious, at last, about tackling homophobic and transphobic
hate crimes. Gayness is no longer classified as an illness.

At this pace of progress, in the long term, homophobic prejudice and
discrimination are doomed. It is then that the LGBT community will
face an unexpected challenge.

LGBT identity is largely a defence against homophobia. Faced with
victimisation, we had to defend our right to be LGBT and create our
own community institutions to fill the void created by an uncaring,
bigoted society. But when legal equality and social acceptance have
been won, will there be any need for a separate LGBT identity and
community? If one sexuality is not deemed more valid than the other,
much of the raison d’être for distinguishing between gay and straight
disappears.

This is the ultimate paradox. GLF spawned a movement that created the
conditions for its own dissolution. The more we secure the acceptance
and human rights of LGBT people, the less we need a separate gay
identity, community and movement. In a queer-friendly society, the
differences between homo and hetero lose their significance. When no
one cares who is gay and who is straight, there will be no point in
maintaining a distinction between the two sexualities. Labelling
people and behaviour becomes irrelevant. The movement becomes
redundant.

Forty years after GLF pioneered a trailblazing freedom agenda, I am
still celebrating LGBT Pride. But my eye is firmly fixed on the real
prize: a world beyond gay and straight.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/02/40-years-gay-pride