Re-think on gay issues needed
A month on from the introduction of the Civil Partnerships Bill, and with Oxford finally inside the top ten gayest cities in the UK, is it not counterproductive to be making a big deal of sexual orientation? Is the queer community in Oxford looking for a fight that isn't really there?
In its 35th year, one might argue that LBGsoc has become a redundant Oxford society. No longer must they fight against discrimination from the homophobic masses. Where discrimination on the basis of sexuality can be seen to exist, it is met by the OUSU queer rights campaign.
Yet Daniel Irvine, the current president of LGBsoc, still sees a need for the society: "My ideal would be to see all queer freshers signing up and becoming members," he said.
The idea is to create a social organisation that people wish to be a part of for the activities being offered and for the people that one might meet, not because it is the only place in Oxford where gay students can be themselves.
Of course there is still a need for the welfare services that LGBsoc provides. The society is visible as a net of support for all those unclear about their sexuality within the University and is essential in providing support and advice.
What it must never do is attempt to offer itself as a representation of, or a voice for, gay students in Oxford. LGBsoc is not political.
Yet can LGBsoc be a platform for gay welfare in Oxford without taking up some sort of political stance?
At Oxford Pride, which took place on May 1st, Oxfordshire County Council's Registration Service launched its new commitment ceremony service for lesbian, gay and heterosexual couples. Father John Hyde, of the Open Episcopal Church, was available at the event to offer blessings for same-sex couples.
Regardless of whether you agree with the principle of Civil Partnerships, it seems increasingly difficult to avoid questions of ethics or religion as a gay student in Oxford.
Though some might argue that Oxford students are more liberal than most, a result perhaps of seeing the range of backgrounds from which intelligent and inspiring students can emerge, they are not beyond a subconscious stereotyping.
Though they may be open to a debate over the question of queer rights, without a society that manages to represent all gay students in Oxford, there is little forum for such discussion.
LGBsoc must be a society that is broad enough to encompass all gay students as members, and must stay independent of other political aspirations.
We can only applaud such motivations in the current committee. Let Oxford Pride 2004 be a celebration of a liberal society and of the individual's right to choose whether or not we are to be defined by our sexual orientation.
6th May 2004