Wednesday, 19 October 2011

I Don't Believe in Gay Marriage!

When I grow up I want to be a gay politician, live in a gay house, cook gay dinner, watch gay tv, have a gay marriage, grow old with my gay husband and have gay kids.
When I grow up I want to be a politician, live in a house, cook dinner, watch tv, have a marriage, grow old with my husband and have a kid.
Just because I am gay does NOT mean that everything in my life is gay. So why should I have a 'gay marriage', why does it have to be labelled because of my sexuality, why can't I just get married?

In saying that though, I think the idea of marriage needs to be reviewed. Marriage used to be all about religion and being seen as a couple in the eyes of God, but not everyone believes in God so why should marriage still revolve around him? Sure you can get married in a Civil Ceremony but they still talk about being under the 'eyes of God'. I'm not a firm believer in God so why should I get married under his supervision and I am pretty sure atheists would feel the same.

Not only that, but many religions do not want to allow gays to get married, because of this religious belief of marriage, so why should we make them? Why should we stand and tell them that their religion is wrong? Everyone has an opinion, everyone has beliefs. Who are we to make them change them? Who made us God? Nobody. So instead of forcing them to change their views of marriage, why don't we change ours.

Marriage is a legally binding institution that defines how property, pensions, employment benefits, tax-credits, child support and inheritance and tenancy agreements are treated if one partner in the marriage dies, or the marriage comes to an end. -  UK Law

We need to strengthen the idea that marriage is not just a religious thing, but it is a contract between two people, sometimes for reasons other than religion; social, economic, spiritual and even just the emotional attachment that humans have to be with someone. We need to have two different forms of marriage. For the sake of argument I will call them 'Religious Marriage' and 'State Marriage'.

This solution is basically already in place in many countries, but it needs to be reinforced and strengthened and it needs to be seen as both marriages being different entities but still supporting the same basis. 

Religious Marriage:
You go to a church, or whichever place of worship you have, and have a traditional (or not) ceremony. You get married under the eyes of God and your protect the sanctity of marriage. You are not effecting anyone else, you are doing it by your own religion and that is that. You are now married under the eyes of God. But not the state. If you want to be married under the eyes of the state, to gain all the advantages of being married, you sign a document along with your Minister (or equivalent) and you are now married under the eyes of the state. Sounds pretty simple and is basically the same procedure which happens in today's society.

But the things is, not all people want this, Atheists for example, and then many religious groups do not want certain groups to get married in a church, Gays for example. So for this we have State Marriage.

State Marriage:
You got to a government approved building, or an alternative setting pre-arranged, such as libraries, beaches or even your own house, and have a wedding ceremony. You get married under the eyes of the state. The ceremony is not based on God or religion or anything and you sign a few papers along with the official who married you and you are now married under the eyes of the state, being able to enjoy the advantages it brings. This way you have not interfered with any religion and have not destroyed the 'sanctity of marriage'.

Is it just me or this not common sense. There should be a separation of church and state. Why should a state of elected officials be told by a religious body who does and doesn't have the right to get married? At the same time why should a religious body, which has been around for thousands of years, be told who they can and cannot stop getting married. It is unfair and unjust on both occasions. This way there is no confusion as to who (everyone) can get married.

Religious people can get married under the eyes of God and be happy knowing they are continuing in a thousand year old tradition while groups just as gays and atheists can get married under the eyes of the state knowing they are not infringing on the religion of others. This way different churches and different religions can choose whether or not they want gay marriage in their church. This is not stopping gays from getting married in a church, this is a solution to prevent from forcing view points on one another.

My name is Nathan Dickson and one day I want to grow up and get married. I don't want a 'gay marriage' I want a marriage. I want to be able to live my life free from religious constraints and free to marry who I please. Is that so hard to ask. Why does religion have to be brought in to it? All I want is to be able to enjoy the benefits being married has in a state and under the eyes of the law.

Wednesday, 5 October 2011

It's not the size of the Army, it is the Force of the Attack!

So I have studied many battles in my years of being a History student and I have learnt that it is not the size of the army that matters, but it is many other factors that determine a victory or not. Like what can you actually do with the army that you have? How successful has your army been in the past? Does your army have a reputation? The list goes on and on.

Compared to America, Vietnam had a very small army. America had this huge reputation about how it had never lost a war and was always victorious. Yet, Vietnam still won. Size isn't everything and America needed to learn this. Sure America's size had got it through some pretty good times in the past, but this time its size would not get it the victory it needed. Strategy and tactics is what is needed. Vietnam showed that sometimes a full out attack is not always the way to go, sometimes you need to warm up first. Guerilla Warfare got them through the war very successfully. They showed America that even though they had a small army, by use of small short attacks they could get the result that was required. It is not the size of the army, but all about how you use what you have got.

China's 'Ever Victorious Army' is another example of an army was ever victorious even though it encountered armies which where much bigger than it was. Here the battles where won because of training. If an army knows what it is doing and is well equipped it can defeat a less educated army simply. The Ever Victorious Army where very well trained not only in combat but also in strategy and used this to take down even the greatest of foes. This army is a prime example of showing us that it is not the size of the army,  but it is all about knowing what you are doing and not just about storming the keep.

During the American Civil War there where plenty occasions where battles where won by smaller forces. The Battle of Chanellorsville is one of these such occasions. The Confederacy force defeated the Union force even though it was fighting an army over double its size! The Confederacy used a number of different tactics throughout the battle from splitting it's troops to using defensive measure mixed with all out assaults. By varying its tactics it was able to successfully win the battle. We can see here that again it is not the size of the army that counts it is how you deliver your attack, by using different tactics and trying different things you will always come out with a better battle!

So from the three examples shown I think it is clear to say that the leader of the bigger army is not always going to be the most successful leader. To be a successful leader you need to work to your advantages. First of all you need to know what you are doing, if you don't know how to have a battle then you are screwed as the outcome is not going to be pretty and you will make a fool of yourself. You need to be able to know not only your tactics, but your opponents tactics, by knowing how each army is going to react you will give yourself a much better outcome than not planning your attack. Know what works for you. If a leader has a specific tactic that guarantees victory, use it, but know when to use it and how often to use it as too much of a good thing is not always a good thing. It is not about how big your army is, it is about the force of the attack and how big of an impact you make. There is no point winning a battle if it is never going to be celebrated in history as being a great battle. Remember there is a difference between a victory and a historical victory.

AND YES if you haven't already realised this blog was all about sex!