We all have heard rumours and fears about Iran's nuclear programme (uranium enrichment programme, to be specific). We have heard its president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad brag that, I quote, 'Iran is the most powerful country in the world.' President Ahmadinejad has also verbally attacked Israel a lot of times.

But I think that, in the light of new actions of Iranian government, and also adding up the history of the country and world, we can conclude that Iran works so hard on its army because it wants to be able to defend itself.

Nothing else would explain why it tries so hard to intimidate the rest of the world. It wants to show the world that it is strong and therefore, in case of an attack on it, it will be able to defend itself. If it had plans to launch an attack on Israel or any other country, it would surely be secretive about it and wouldn't show all the power they have.

Iran is a theocratic country with signs of tyranny and dictatorship. It is similar to what Iraq was seven years ago in many ways. I think it's only logical that they fear Iraq's destiny.

Therefore, I think its huge military base is for defence, not attack.

.

1. Rebuttal of arguments:

(i) Argument that TV shows ruin the sanctity of marriage:
Not relevant, for whether the sanctity is ruined or not, it does not affect its comparison with civil union;

(ii) Argument that allowing homosexuals to marry (enter into a marriage) is a civil rights issue:
Marriage, as defined further on in 2.(i), is a part of the Church. As opposition pointed out themselves, Church is separated from the State. Ergo, civil rights, as a part of the State, have nothing to do with marriage, since it is a part of the Church.


2. Arguments for the resolution:

Since there can only be difference between marriage and civil union if we look at the possible homosexual couples wishing to enter into one of these unions, I shall look at the argument as whether marriage and/or civil union can include homosexual couples.


(i) A marriage, by definition, is a sacred union that ties a man and a woman by vows;
(ii) A civil union is a union that ties two persons by vows.

There is no need to change the definition of 'marriage' to include homosexual couples because:
(a) Marriage is accepted as a term introduced by The Bible;
(b) The Bible looks at homosexuals as sinners, therefore not accepting them.

From (b) follows that homosexuals cannot follow The Bible - not because of their choice but because of the contens of The Bible.

Ergo, they cannot - and, in fact, cannot wish to - enter into a marriage since they cannot be accepted as Christians because of the (b).

Because of (a), therefore, homosexual couples can only wish to be and be accepted into a civil union while they cannot wish to be and be accepted into a marriage.

Ergo, there is a difference between marriage and civil union.