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.
NO!
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.

Unionism is nationalism NOT Nationalism

This may come as a big shock to everyone, but I am, in fact, a nationalist.

There are two forms of nationalism in Northern Ireland, Republicanism and Loyalism. Both are different forms of nationalism; while Republicanism is nationalistic towards Ireland, Loyalism is nationalistic towards the United Kingdom.

These two phrases 'Nationalist' and 'Unionist' in my opinion are very out-dated. They no longer mean what they used to and it could be argued that they are used the wrong way round. A Nationalist is actually a Unionist and Unionist is actually a Nationalist. This brings me back to me first stating that I was a nationalist. In today's society 'Nationalists' are fighting for a union once again between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland while 'Unionists' are fighting to stay part of the nation which is United Kingdom. Yes during the early part of the twentieth century these terms where used to a different effect and worked back then, but now I feel as if they are no longer terms which are useful in the twenty first century. People fail to see the difference in Nationalism and nationalism and this is where the confusion lies.

Of course what I just wrote could be debated in a completely different arguing that 'Unionists' are fighting for the continuing union of the United Kingdom, however I feel it is interesting to think that both phrases actually work for both parties.

Benedict Anderson argues that 'the nation' is this 'imagined community'. I feel that I have to disagree with him as if a nation is imagined, then it does not exist and then therefore there is nothing to be proud of. I am British. If my nationality is towards this 'imagined community' then where does that leave me? Can I be part of more than one community? Can I imagine my own community?

I suppose though this is true in Sinn Fein's form of Nationalism. They believe in an imagined 'United Ireland' This imagined community is more of a geographical rather than political doctrine as it not official due to Northern Ireland officially being a part of the United Kingdom. It is also imagined in the sense that we do not know all of those in our community and will never meet them. No matter this community does exist whether imagined or not. This community is due to an official Nation pre 1921.

It is hard to not be biased in this blog but I know I am being it. Personally I dislike the fact that the people of Northern Ireland can have dual-nationality and have both a British and Irish passport. People constantly try to claim that I have this opinion because I am a 'Unionist' however this is not the case. In my mind you cannot have two nationalities. If nationalists believe that the nation is the central principle of political organisation, then you cannot have two nationalities. It would be impossible to carry out the laws of both political establishments and there would always have to be one, which in your mind, carried more political sovereignty. The problem with having an Irish Passport and a British Passport is that you can now be conscripted by either army, but what happens if the two countries went to war, which side would you pick? I just feel that too many complications arise from having dual-nationality.

An opinion that I have, even if it is rather harsh, is if you don't like it then pack up and move. If people in Northern Ireland want to be part of Ireland why don't they just move there? To me it makes more sense than having this tension between the two communities. It all comes down to the fact that, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom whether they like it or not. But do not get me wrong, if a referendum was held and the people voted for a United Ireland, there is nothing I could do about it as the majority of the people would have voted for it. But today, a majority of the people do not want it.

If a United Ireland happened, I would have two options. Take pride in my new Irish Nationality, or pack up and move to the United Kingdom. To be perfectly honest right now I am not sure what I would do. I am not a 'Unionist' because of my family, or my religion, but because of my great pride of being part of the United Kingdom but mainly because that is what is FACT. But if this fact changed and I now did live in Ireland, I may just embrace my Irish-ness and become Irish. However I am possibly swayed more towards moving to the United Kingdom, simply because it means I would be able to vote for Jedward in 2012 Eurovision as it is possible they will be representing them again.

Gays are too Gay

Yes I am a homosexual, but I am not under any circumstances 'gay'. I hate being labelled. I hate being introduced as 'the gay friend'. I hate how my sexuality seems to be how people describe me. Fair enough, I am pretty camp, but that is because of who I am, not what I am. There is so much more to me than just being gay.

I study History and Politics.
I want to be the Prime Minister one day.
If I do not get into politics I want to become a teacher.
I enjoy writing and often write poetry.
My favourite colour is blue.
I like to sleep with my teddy.
My nickname is Nando.
I love Glee.

You know this list goes on and on. I may be sexually attracted to guys but that does not make me part of some 'community' or automatically fit into some sort of stereotype. Sure I may fit into some of these stereotypes, but so what? I don't introduce some people as my 'straight friend', automatically assume that they are a sports fanatic or even fancy every girl that has ever walked the earth. Sure I may talk about guys a lot, but last time I checked straight people talk about the opposite sex a lot as well. It just annoys me that people think they automatically know who I am and everything about me because I am gay. Well I'm sorry but no you don't. Most people are surprised to find out that I am obsessed with Black Ops. Why should you be surprised? It isn't like it is a straight only game.

What makes this all worse though is people who I like to call 'Gay gays'. These are the people who constantly like to remind others they are gay, put all over their twitter that they are gay, are always talking about how discriminated against they are, trying to play the 'gay card' when life doesn't go their way. Well I am sorry, but the person who fell out with you, didn't do so because you gay, they did it because you are not a very nice person to hang about with, you didn't get that job because the employer was homophobic, you didn't get it because the person who got it was just more qualified than you and for goodness sake people don't call you a slut because you are gay, they call you one because you have sex with every guy you come across.

Some gay people need to stop being 'Gay' and start being who they are. It really bugs me when people try and revolve their whole life around their sexuality, there is so much more to a person than their sexuality and if people ever want to cut out homophobia they need to realise that being gay isn't everything.

Before I continue I would like to point out that this is not a blog giving off at or separating 'queens' or 'straight acting' people as that is another argument all together. Both 'types' of gays are guilty of this. I myself have been guilty of this as some of my friends like to point out to me when I go off on this rant.

But. Back to the main point. Some gay people spend too much time stereotyping themselves and constantly reminding people that they are gay that they further separate themselves from everyone else. In my opinion fighting for Gay Rights is about both 'communities' coming together and showing people that we are the same whether we are gay, straight, lesbian, transgender or whatever. I just wish people would stop making it worse for themselves.

Yes I do think that some people make it worse for themselves. Fighting for gay rights is something that I have done in the past and will continue to do in some situations where I feel that my voice should be heard. Those people who fight for such rights are an admiration to me that they stand up there and fight for these things. But they are not fighting for your rights so that you can constantly make yourself different and constantly try to feel discriminated against. Yes there are some occasions where gay people are discriminated against which is wrong, but that does not give anyone the right to say they always are. In fact sometimes I feel like when some people play the 'gay card' they are spitting in the faces of the people who stand up for the rights of homosexual people.

Right so this blog has been a bit all over the place but I would just like to sum up my argument, if possible. Basically I believe that some gay people should stop focussing on how different they are to everyone else and start realising that everybody is all the same no matter what their sexuality. People, both straight and gay, need to realise that nobody should be described by their sexuality. The gender of person who you want to share a bed with does not dictate who you are, it is how you treat that person and everyone else around you which dictates who you are. So stop trying to be 'Gay' and start being yourself and you will find that those rights you want and deserve are within all of our grasps.

Scottish Independence: Part 1 An Overview

So, SNP have grasped power in the Scottish Parliament, and now once agian the debate of Scottish Independency is back in the forefront of peoples minds. Is independency viable? Is it better for Scotland? Will it happen? Should it happen? In my opinion the answer to all these questions is 'NO' and that is what I will mark on a referendum if one ever comes to light.

I don't want an Independent Scotland and most likely you are not going to want it either. In a recent survey done, 58% of the people would like a referendum to be held, this sounds promising to any YES campaign, but only on the surface. Only 38% of the people of those people actually want independence with a majority of 54% stating they would rather stay part of the United Kingdom. So it is more likely that people want this referendum to tell the SNP that they do not want to a State in their own right and enjoy the benefits of being part of the United Kingdom. So why should we sit back and let the SNP dictate what they think they got elected in for?

Scottish Independence was not a serious issue for the SNP in the 2011 elections, it was however an issue for Labour. Scottish Labour stated they where going to fight against an Independent Scotland, this could be the reason why Labour lost some seats as the Electorate where not concerned on the issue at this time. If people wanted Independence they would vote for SNP on a national level, Westminster, not on a local level. People voted SNP to the Scottish Parliament because they wanted an alternative to Labour and to punish Liberal Democrats. The SNP where the better option as they had great success in their performance in office and they readily engaged with the Scottish People in a way which Labour never did.

Independancy is not economically viable, now yes Scotland have all this Oil, and I do not know how many times I have read 'we have water, we could survive on Hydro'. Well yes it may be viable in 10 or 20 years time when Hydro power is providing closer to 100% of its energy rather than the 20% or so it is now. Maybe then Scotland could be self sufficient, but for now, it could not survive. Off-shore oil is in a steady decline and over the past decade has fluctuated between £5 million and £1 million, this does not pave the way for a solid income. Not only that but it is going to cost over £5000 a year on taxes, over the taxes being paid already. A new Scottish Government is going to be facing between £4.4 billion and £8 billion a year less than what it is currently receiving as part of the United Kingdom.

I don't want an Independent Scotland. Polls show you most likely don't want one. SNP didn't actually campaign for it. I doubt most economists want it, but most importantly, none of the three main parties in Westminster want it. All have stated, in one way or another, that if a referendum came to the table they would all help campaign the 'NO' vote. David Cameron has been very vocal in this and I agree why shouldn't he be. United Kingdom is a very special country, being a 'country of countries' and would lose some of its credibility as this if Scotland were to break away. Yes, for Cameron, it is a point of pride, but what is wrong with that? Giving up Scotland is giving up 500 years of British History!

I do not want to lose out on Scotland, who is going to support us in the tennis now....?

One Currency to Rule Them

One currency to rule them all, One currency to find them,
One currency to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the land of Brussels where the shadows lie.

So I am not a big fan of the European Union as you all probably know. There are many reasons why I do not like it, and I shall possibly write a blog about this at some stage. But for now I would like to focus on why Britain should not join the Euro.

The 'LOTR' adapted quote shows one of my main reasons for not wanting to joining the Euro: stability. It may result in an unsustainable economy throughout Europe, and one country may bring down the rest of us. If this does happen and one or two countries then decide to opt back out of the Euro which could tip the balance in any form of Inflation Policies. The UK should be wary that joining the Euro may have its benefits but only during periods of Economic Strengths, which the world in general, and certainly Europe are not experiencing.

Due to a single interest rate, the EU will have to increase payments to countries which have had their debt and interest rates increased, which will reflect badly on the rest of the EU. This happened in Holland where inflation grew by 48%. It will be harder for such countries to sustain a failing currency and Holland would be better off starting a new currency entirely, which brings back to the possibility of them having to leave the Union.

We have handed over most of our political sovereignty to Brussels; why should we give it our financial power as well? Whether or not they would handle it well isn't the case. We are the United Kingdom, we are British, we are a country who is giving all our power over. People in Scotland don't like the Government because there is England; who has been making their laws. So why should we stand for someone in France making the rules for the entire UK?


Finally I simply just cannot be bothered to change currency, I am not very good with maths and the worst thing about going on holidays is the annoyance of constantly having to convert currency. I simply don't like it. I know this last point one is a terrible excuse, but I would be lying if I didn't say it was a factor.

Yes, I know there are many reasons for why the Euro should be introduced, but I hope my arguments effectively counter them. At the end of the day: we cannot implement the Euro at this time anyway for three important reasons.

1) The Maastricht convergence criterion state that our public debt must be below 60% of deficit; below 3% of GPD. Even economic observers state that the Government aims of creating this are optimistic in the short term. (which is, as of March of this year, at 76.1%)

2) We must have spent 2 years in the ERM which Britain have yet to do especially after 'Black Wednesday' in 1992.

3) Public Opinion. There has been little proper coverage to the public about this issue, if the Euro is to be put in place the two main parties who support the Euro state a Referendum must be held. Taking into account the recent Referendum which had just over 50% turn out voter fatigue may play a part which will put back the date of any such referendum.


For now I think we should be happy with Sterling and if the Euro is what we need, then perhaps we should wait, and see if our circumstances become any better.

Hitler's Coalition Government!

So we all know that Hitler is described as one of the most evil people to roam the earth. Yes Hitler was a horrible man, the way he went about everything was horrible and words cannot comprehend the things he did. So how can I say that Adolf Hitler, in my eyes, is an admirable politician and I actually don't think people understand what a political genius he was.

Hitler was a 'minority of minorities' and yet still came to be the most powerful man in the country. In May 1928 he had only 2.8% of the vote and in 15 years, 1938, he managed to become Fuhrer the most powerful man in German Politics. And it should be noted that Hitler only became a German citizen in 1932, meaning it would only take him 6 years from being allowed to run for any form of public office to achieve his ultimate dream. Yes violence was a part of this but I am going to focus less on that and the more on the practical ways which he came to power.

Hitler was a very 'modern' politician of the time and focused on modern technology to get his support base. His use of radio got his message heard throughout the whole of Germany which is something he could not achieve before the Munich Putsch. His slogan for Presidency 'Hitler Above Germany' was a reference to him using an aircraft to travel around Germany, making him appear very statesmen like.

Even though Hitler was eventually sworn in as Chancellor, it was under a coalition and Nazi's only got few ministry positions - any they did get where relatively powerless and constricted by the the likes of Papen, a more conservative character than Hitler.

Hitler, now on the inside was able to influence the President and called for a second election in 1933 as no one party had gained a majority of the votes. Also in this year the Parliament (Reichstag) just happened to burn down. Playing on the public fears of the 'left' the Nazis where quick to blame a communist culprit for the fire. Exploiting the fears of the public, they see the Nazis as an alternative to Communism, which quickly increased their support base.

Hitler was able to pass the Enabling Act in 1933 which allowed the Cabinet to have legislative powers for 4 years, including those to change the constitution. Hitler still did not have the majority in Parliament and in return for their support Hitler orally promised the liberty of the Church. Well you can see the blunder the Centre Party made.

Now Hitler had complete power and slowly began hacking away at the Democratic Institution from within, and when the President died, he simply wiped out the need for a President and created the position of the Fuhrer. This was against any law, including the Enabling Act, but nobody dared to rival Hitler.

As you can see from all this Hitler succeeded in becoming the most powerful man in Germany in only a few short years. Obviously there are a number of other reasons why Hitler was so successful but I just wanted to point out a few short reasons which I find very interesting.

Personally I admire Hitler for what he did, not in a historical sense; but in the political and for the simple scale of what he managed to achieve.

It just makes you wonder if such a course of action could be repeated again today. Fear of the BNP, the current depression, war and other external and emotional factors could see the rise of a figure who could abuse the powers given to him by the state, and those created by himself.

Again I am going to talk about AV, if the YES campaign does succeed, we will see a complete flip in our political system. Does this not allow a chance for someone to exploit the people's lack of knowledge to fix the system? Could it cause for a rise in extremist parties? Will a government need to 'orally' make deals with parties to get laws past? And what if a party in government decides to make itself new powers to reduce the weaknesses of coalition, will they abuse those powers?

All of these; food for thought. Not sure what I believe myself but it is something to look into.

(Social) Homophobia is Okay

*WARNING Be Prepared To Hate on This Blog*
(but please read it the whole way through before calling me a Homophobe etc etc...

Personally I believe that Homophobia is not that much of a bad thing in society, it is a form of bullying and nothing else. And yes of course I know that bullying is wrong and shouldn't happen blah blah blah but it will happen and we are never going to completely stamp it out.

I am gay and I got bullied.

Bullying was a horrible part of my life, but it really taught me a lot. I was bullied for a number of things, but one of them for being gay; before and after I came out. I have faced my fair share of homophobia in my life, but it has only made me stronger.

But how can I stand and say that homophobia is a terrible thing and that nobody should be allowed to be homophobic whenever I am slightly racist sexist and even homophobic myself. Now do not get me wrong I have colored and gay people as friends heck I even have females as friends but I still make the odd 'get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich' joke now and then.

When someone gets beaten up due to a 'homophobic attack' I think it should be treated just as equally as any other form of attack Whether you attack someone because they are gay or because they are black or because they kissed your girlfriend it is all the same. They don't like who you are or what you have done, but either way they have attacked you which is wrong, but no attack (of the same physical injury) should be treated any differently just becase it was a 'homophobic attack'

What I am trying to get across is that there is some people out there who will never like me because I am gay, and will condemn who or what I am. But who am I to stand and tell them that they are wrong? That is their personal opinion and if they choose not to like it that is up to them.

Homophobia and Racism etc only exist and are problems in society because we make them problems. Homophobic bullying is no different from bullying someone because you are ginger and until people realize this it will become less of a problem. I use 'thats so gay' all the time in my day to day language but because I say that doesn't make me homophobic just the same as me calling it a 'Blackboard' does not make me racist even if it is politically correct to call it a 'Chalkboard'

When I say all of this I do not for one second believe it is fair to deny someone a job, or housing or any form of public service because of sexual orientation gender or race. BUT if someone has an opinion then they should be allowed to express it. Am I wrong? If so express your opinion on the matter telling me why people should not be allowed to express theirs.

Vote 'NO' on May 5th

This country prides itself in its Democracy where people are all given the same chances and we all have the right to vote. So why should we give this right more to others and less to some? AV will change the Democracy of this country right from the very core of our political system, that core being its citizens voting.This new voting system will allow some people to have their votes counted more than once while your vote will only be counted once. This destroys the principle of “one-man one-vote”, which this, and many other countries, pride themselves in when calling themselves a Democracy.

There are only three countries in the world that use this system, Australia, Fiji and Papa New Guinea. While First Past the Post, our current system is used by 50 countries and is the most widely used system. It seems odd to move from the most used system to one of the least used systems does it not?

Those who claim that the system will make the results more representative cannot prove any of this, neither can those who claim the system will allow extremist parties more chance of getting a seat. However there are quite a number of Political Parties in Britain meaning that it will be harder for a certain candidate to get over 50% of the vote if people spread their second and third choices too widely. Parties such as Green and BNP are still not even guaranteed to get any closer to being elected through this system anyway. Australia uses this system and got its first Green MP in 2010, the same year the UK got it’s first Green MP, and Alliance MP, using our current system. It took Australia 90 years to become more representative using this system. Why fix what isn’t broken?

First Past the Post is an easier and simpler system to use rather than AV; it provides us with strong accountable governments. The current election outcome has been a blip on the radar, while with AV, Coalition Governments will become a more common occurrence. Previous to the coalition government created in 2010 the official Coalition was the National Government during the war which was clearly only there for National Interest. During the twentieth century there have been unofficial coalitions where a party has agreed to pass laws made by the governments as seen in 1978 when Labours majority was eroded during by-elections and relied on Liberal support. This agreement was short of a full coalition and was only there because of by-elections, so it is debateable at how much of a tangent this government actually is.

Supporters of AV will claim that its success will bring more ideas to the table and that this will result in better governing. In my opinion this is a naïve view. The amount of ideas will not change, what will change however is where they are debated, the debate will move from the House of Commons to across the Cabinet Table. Too many ideas and opinions on a Cabinet table is not good idea, as it will cause for slow and ineffective governing. Ideas in opposition to the government are needed in opposition to it not within it. I believe that a ‘Coalition Opposition’ rather than ’Coalition Government’ is needed for a better debate and scrutiny of any policy. This in itself makes the government more accountable for its actions as you can easily blame one party for its mistakes; and blame is not blurred by a weak coalition.

First Past the Post is the better option so I am asking you to vote ‘No’ on May 5th. I believe you will be making the better choice, personally I believe there is much strength in having a proportional representation system in place, but I would rather a different system. Say ‘No’ on May 5th and fight for a system better than AV! Say ‘No’ on May 5th and do not let this 2nd or 3rd best system become our only system!