Thursday, March 08, 2007

Mardi Gras '07.... 雪梨同志遊行...シドニーマーディグラー...

One of the numerous Mardi Gras Flags displayed around the city
My Seriously Blurred Pic of some dance performance at the Parade...

More dance performances....

The thousands of people who lined up to watch the parade...i'm not kidding, there must have been at least 1,000 spectators there....

More people along both sides of the parade route..... its over 1km long...running along the stretch of Oxford Street...

One of the many transgendered performers....

Dancing Go-go Boys........

No, we're not at Bondi Beach, the lifesavers are just purely for the parade and for gay men to oogle at their nice well sculpted bodies and the 'uniform' kinkiness....hehe... ohmy gosh!!! u should have seen some of the men at the parade, their bodies are like perfectly moulded...and this Thai guy on the Thai Float section, he is sooooooooo cute and amazingly good-looking...and the 2 topless guys shaking provocatively their hips on another one of the floats...woooo...

My Long delayed Post on the Mardi Gras Parade....well it was my first time at the Mardi Gras, and also my first time at any Gay Pride Parade for that matter.....tho i've been to the Melbourne Midsumma Carnival Day which is like a day time event, more like a picnic, with booths and stalls promoting gay stuff...

Well, i must say it was one of THE BEST PARADES i've ever been to in my whole life.....the entire atmosphere was one of support and fun and everyone i could tell was having so much fun!! For those who've never been, this is truly a big event in Sydney cos like i would say half of all the people there were straight people NOT gay....alot of tourists were there i could tell and alot of young people, couples (straight ones!) and to my surprise families had even brought along their grandparents to have a look....more on that later.....!

I was really surprised to see the number of people who had turned up for the parade....i kinda thought Mardi Gras wasn't really that popular...u know, only the gay people and some young liberal straight people will attend the parade but boy was I many people attended when u walked towards the parade route from the city, it became so crowded all of a sudden and people had gone really early to get a spot to watch the parade....there were people standing on chairs, on the bus stop waiting areas and....even on tree branches (that was until the police asked them to come down!!), And my housemate asked me whether i had gone to watch the Mardi Gras Parade when i got home...which just goes to show how popular the parade is....i mean why would she ask if it wasn't a popular parade which many people go to??

Now, the bad thing was my camera went abit bonkers just as the parade was about to start and so i couldn't take many photos (arrrggghhh!!!!!) but i did make a clip of the entire parade using my new mobile phone's built-in videocamera....

The Parade itself was fantastic and much tamer than i expected....not alot of nudity, only 4 or 5 floats with half naked dancing boys and in the beginning some of the lesbian women went topless on their bikes....of cos there was this man whom literally walked about naked with knitting wrapped around his...ahem...'doodle'....for want of a better word...and he walked passed this Chinese grandmother (the grannie i mentioned earlier brought by her family) and i was expecting a look of shock or horror from her face or maybe even looks of disgust from spectators but noooooo grannie had one of the finest grins on her face and she looked delighted at the sight of the naked man..(mayb its been awhile i guess....grandpa must've stopped a long time bck)....

The entire parade was fun and people were really into the atmosphere with everyone cheering and screaming the performers on, and this Malaysian guy standing next to me cheering on with his hands up as if he was at a concert (and i'm almost certain he is NOT just can tell)....oh was quite an eye opening experience for me and the entire Oxford St became like a street party with revellers and spectators drinking booze and everyone super high...

I think everyone had tons of fun and after the parade you could see people were still in a high mood...groups of obviously straight people were wandering around with a 'pink flag of the UK' and a British guy who was with his girlfriend and another straight couple even fooled around saying which guy he was truly a fantastic night!!

So for those thinking of visiting Sydney, if u do come during the Mardi Gras period, do attend the Parade cos its all great fun and u won't regret it!! Also NO ONE is going to think u r gay just bcos u come along cos like i said, at least half of all the people watching that night were straight...and for those Sydneysiders who've never been yet (wherever have u been all this time?!) do come along the next time the Mardi Gras Parade is held cos its fun, entertaining, and a way to show your support for the gay and lesbian community, and thus meaningful too:)


jw said...

It sounds like you had a blast :). The last time I went was about 10 years ago. I admit back then I just went along with the crowd and I hadn't really given the "gay" issue much thought. I guess people are attracted to it simply because it is a good party atmosphere, and it promotes tolerance and acceptance to a group of people who have been discriminated against and misunderstood in the past. So it seems to be all for a good cause and a bit of fun on the side.

I believe that yes it is important to teach the population to be accepting of homosexuals because I know that there are a lot of "gay haters" out there. These people are just as ignorant as the people who actually go ahead and promote and glamourize homosexuals. Some people like yourself, seem to be letting the appeal to your sensualities stop you from examining the bigger broader picture. There is absolutely no reason to glamourize and promote homosexuality. Accept them, yes. But no need to promote it. When my child is going through their developmental stages in their sexuality I would rather they be taught by society that heterosexuality is the norm, and the preferred, and not "it's ok if you choose either way, if you have tendencies towards the same sex just let yourself go with the flow"

Ok, so for those who are in favour of the above argument, if conscenting adults who are siblings decide to have sex and/or get married etc, how is it different? I really would like to know. To be consistent, incest would also have to be ok, as would polygamy (marriage to more than one partner). So if people started parades to promote and glmaourize incest and polygamy, you should be fully in support of it, to be consistent with your reasoning - being that if two or more conscenting adults share their love and do not harm any others, then what right do we have to discourage it? So do you support incest and polygamy? I mean they are loving humans who just want to do as their tendencies urge them to do and are not doing anyone any harm, so your answer is yes?

Some even try to argue and pitt unhappy heterosexual couples against happy gay couples, as if the former justifies the latter. They are 2 completely separate issues, but I can see how the human nature in us can try to draw this kind of illogical comparison.

In the Netherlands they legalised gay marriages and the result? Not many people are getting married anymore. Marriage is no longer a means for a society to build families, it has become redefined. I kinda would like marriage to stay the way it is for the benefit of the majority and not let it lose it's meaning just for the sake of a few minority. This is called looking at the bigger picture. Humanity has spent 1000s of years developing the most fruitful and happy structure for the building blocks of our society which is the family. There was a reason why incest and polygamy and homosexuality was discouraged. Sorry to put it this way, but you have fallen for the propaganda of the gay activists.

A friend of mine had a gay brother and noticed that he goes through "many boyfriends", and I guess it comes down to your individual moral values as to whether you see anything wrong with that. I heard that his brother has been steadily changing his viewpoints on his sexuality. I view this as a positive, but you may not.

For those that argue that there is a "gay gene" there is no proof of this, if anything it has been proven through studies of twins, that there are at least over 50% environmental and psycholgical factors that determine the sexuality of a person, and many gays agree with this. Those who promote the "gay gene" are the gay activists with a political agenda.

jw said...

More information to digest :) from wikipedia

Father-son Relationships and Male Sexual Development

Investigation into parent-child relations of homosexual and heterosexual men is heavily documented in research literature, and a link between the absence of sufficient bonding with same-sex parent or role models and the development of adult male homosexuality has been proposed. Numerous studies have found that adult homosexual males tend to report having had less loving and more rejecting fathers than their heterosexual peers

Bieber (1976) stated:

Since 1962 when our volume was published, I have interviewed about 1,000 male homosexuals and 50 pairs of parents of homosexuals. The classic pattern was present in more than 90% of cases. In my entire experience, I have never interviewed a single male homosexual who had a constructive, loving father. A son who has a loving father who respects him does not become a homosexual. I have concluded that there is a causal relationship between parental influence and sexual choice

– p. 368

Bieber (1976) later expanded and clarified his earlier findings by saying:

We have repeatedly stated and written that a boy whose father is warmly related and constructive will not become homosexual; however, one must not get trapped by the fallacy of the converse, that is, a hostile, destructive father always produces a homosexual son

The above is open to criticism, however one constant is that the fathers were non-loving and hostile. So even if you want to argue that "because the child was gay already that is why they formed a closer bond with the mother", there is undeniable constant trend that the fathers showed lack of support and love to the child. Also, this obviously isn't the only factor in the development of a child's sexual orientation.

Here is famous Freud's speculation:

Historically, Freud and many others psychologists, particularly in psychoanalytic or developmental traditions, speculated that formative childhood experiences helped produce sexual orientation; as an example Freud believed that all human teenagers are predominantly homosexual and transition to heterosexuality in adulthood; those who remain homosexual as adults he believed had experienced some traumatic event that arrested their sexual development; however, he did believe all adults, even those who had healthy sexual development still retained latent homosexuality to varying degrees

This is the current critique of all scientific studies done so far

The studies performed in order to find the origin of sexual orientation have been criticized for being too limited in scope, mostly for focusing only on heterosexuality and homosexuality as two diametrically opposite poles with no orientation in between.

It is also asserted that scientific studies focus too much on the search for a biological explanation for sexual orientation, and not enough on the combined effects of both biology and psychology.

In a brief put forth by the Council for Responsible Genetics, they review studies done so far and conclude that the evidence that sexual orientation is fixed at birth, is inconclusive. On the discourse over sexual orientation: "Noticeably missing from this debate is the notion, championed by Kinsey, that human sexual expression is as variable among people as many other complex traits. Yet just like intelligence, sexuality is a complex human feature that modern science is attempting to explain with genetics... Rather than determining that this results from purely biological processes, a trait evolves from developmental processes that include both biological and social elements. In addition, scientists rarely take into consideration sexual preferences that are not described by the two poles heterosexual and homosexual, 'in hopes of maximizing the chance that they will find something of interest.'" [23]

jw said...

hi hcpen,

I just wanted to acknowledge some oversight on my part. I took the liberty of reading through your first gay post again, and it is more clear to me now where your stance is. I apologise sincerely for misrepresenting you in some of my comments.

I do however still have a couple of points, being that you mentioned that you do not advocate "acceptance" but "tolerance" for gays. I think the Mardi Gras goes far beyond just "tolerating" gays in my humble opinion. I got the impression that you support the Mardi Gras as having a positive impact on society, correct me if I am wrong. I think I have voiced my opinions about the Mardi Gras already :)

Also, the foundation to your belief relies on your belief that there are natural occurances of gays. You and I know that this is not a proven fact, and that all studies so far are inconclusive. If anything, they have proved that there are definitely social factors involved. I think this is where we fundamentally differ in our opinions. I think that there is definite environmental and social factors involved, and that ALL humans have some differing degree of HOMOSEXUAL tendencies, and that there is a point in our developmental stages of our sexual orientation in our youthful ages where these environmental and social factors influence the inclination of the same. (especially close personal encounters and the type of nuturing and the type of relationships we have had with our close ones and those we identify with etc)

Just because it does happen in the animal kingdom, does not prove that it must be natural in human beings. Please note the important fact that only animals with "SOCIAL" structures exhibit this behaviour. So this only re-enforces the fact that homosexuality is derived from social factors. So in all cases gayness can be seen as a social anomaly. Can you provide any cases where non-social animals exhibited this behaviour?

Having said that, I am concerned about any movements which promote and glamourize gayness. And I think at the very least you might agree that, whether you do concede that gays aren't neccessarily "born with it" or not, we should definitely be discouraging it rather than encouraging it.

I also wish that we agree that this discussion isn't about liking or hating gays. I do not hate gays and have never indicated as such. I was hoping merely for academic discussion.

I also think that we might actually agree that gay marriage should not be allowed, and this is only being pushed by gay activists for the social/legal benefits that it provides. It is natural that a government wants to give preferances to marriages which procreate if you look at the big picture and think about the responsibility that the government has for it's nation. There is nothing stopping gays living under the same roof and having a relationship. The government wants to recognise and give benefits to families which procreate and provide for the next generation if the nation.

Thanks again for bearing with me, and at least I have provided plenty of food for thought for you and those who might happen to pass by :)

hcpen 彭皓全 said...

jw: You've written alot on this issue....i will attempt to address everything you said, but i apologise in advance that i'll most probably miss out bits and pieces simply cos u've written too much and i've had to digest too many information!!!

Basically, i accept that you are not hateful of gays but view them as similar to child sex offenders, incest,etc...
THATS WHERE WE DIFFER as i put gays in a different category from i do not agree and think its absolutely disgusting incest and paedophilia so we shouldn't allow ppl who want to have sex with children and their own parents and siblings to indulge in those fantasies. But gays are in a COMPLETELY different category. Pls let me know why u just DON'T seem to get it????
Whats wrong with a man loving, caring, wanting to spend the rest of his life with another man (same for woman-woman relationships)???What's wrong with a man having sex with another man? PLs let me know. I simply don't think its wrong and its NOT cos my sensual senses nor the cuteness of gay men has got to me, i support just like most of my generation now (countless surveys done worldwide have CONCLUSIVELY INDICATED that the younger the generation, the more accepting of homosexuality across nations, including asian countries and that most young people in China, Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia and Japan feel that being gay is either normal, someone's personal choice which should be respected regardless of right or wrong, or wrong but no big deal) And those ppl support my thinking not cos we we don't care where the world is heading (in your words) nor cos we got 'blind' by the 'cuteness factor' in gay culture but cos its something our hearts are telling us that there's nothing so wrong about liking someone of the same sex, that our hearts are saying its wrong to continue to treat homosexuals as essentially sick people, and that just cos gay love is the love of a minority of people DOESN'T make it wrong, it makes it DIFFERENT:):) Thats fundamental reason i see why the tremendous change in attitudes towards homosexuals in the past decades, especially the past one decade has seen an enormous shift in straight people's attitudes towards homosexuals....just look at all the examples i've given u in my 'gay trilogy' of how the MAINSTREAM MEDIA now actively promote acceptance of gays and their culture....we're talking about mainstream tv, comedies, talkshows, we're talking about korean dramas, chinese talk shows, top respectable newspapers like the Chinatimes in Taiwan, Xinhua in China, Japan Times in Japan and the New York Times in America, all of which have a liberal progressive and gay-accepting position and regularly and ONLY write gay-positive articles in the past 5 yrs....(Believe me, i've done my research, the above newspapers are very well regarded and read by many people and if u think i've been 'brainwashed' by 'gay lobbyist' ....then those highl respecte newspapers have also been brainwashed...

really u not think for one moment, how can almost all the world's top selling and well-respected newspapers with first class editors and journalists all be brainwashed at the same time and believe that homosexuality is not wrong or not wrong enough to need change? Think about it.

And NARTH the information is all biased and so sad i pity them....u couldn't find any gay-positive articles there simply cos the sourse is a biased one, just look at their name, i mean why should homosexuals need therapy? They were created in separation from the NATIONALLY RECOGNISED body, the body which almost ALL top psychologist in America belong to, and the most well known one, also mentioned in the article u gave me 'CHOICEs ex-gay pastor' called the American Psycologist Association. APA removed homosexuality as a mental illness, so its actually incorrect for u to continue to refer to it as an 'illness' or as 'abnormal'. As the article u gave me indicated, NARTH is really not mainstream and a right-wing ideological Christian-based group. APA which has stopped 'reparative therapy' bck in 1971 is the MAINSTREAM one, the national basically, my ideas on homosexuality are in accordance with what most pyschologist in America agree as the correct approach, one of self-acceptance, whereas ur opinions concur with NARTH, the organisation no one knows about besides conservative gay-bigots....

Besides, The position in Australia is the same...the main body for Australian psychologist does not view homosexuality as a mental disease that needs therapy and thus n Australia, as far as i know, gays and lesbians who go for counselling will almost always be given 'affirmative counselling' in 'accepting and embracing' their homosexual identities...these are the professionals jw, the medical experts, so i think my opinions on homosexuality is not only in the majority, as indicated by earlier mentioned surveys on how most young people nowadays can accept homosexuality as 'normal' or
no big deal' (if u don't believe me, ask ppl around ur office or friends whom aren't conservative religious believers, i can almost guarantee, in Oz as well, most people can now accept homosexuality)...i mean even the sydney mayor was at the Mardi Gras parade and the labour party too! so are u gonna say the Labour Party, a huge party in OZ, the Sydney mayor have all been 'bought over' by the 'gay promotion agents'??

We aren't dumb u know....if the world's top media, if major AZ political parties and if the Mayor all think homosexuality should be embraced without discrimination as ok, how does that reflect on the minority view of ppl like ur conservative narrow view towards homosexuals jw?

I mean when was the last time u heard a major public figure say on the press 'homosexuality is a mental illness' or 'being gay is wrong'??? I think years, maybe even decades now..even John Howard and President Bush don't say it....even if they think it...

For ur articles on wiki, well its full of bull shit i'm sorry, i just have to say it, its so full of nonsense about people turning gay cos of lack of fatherly love and how a boy with a good father doesn't become a homosexual...oh my goodness lord, what utter nonsense...and its written in 1976, so i don't blame the author, he's probably got his senses knocked bck in now and regrets what he wrote bck then...cos we must admit, society has progressed from 76, and we now know alot of things previously believed such as ur opinion that homosexuality is an illness has now been discredited by the MAJORITY of ppl...and u know it cos u see it urself, Brokeback mountain and its popularity with many people, rented in every major rental video store all over comedies, progessive articles in the newspapers and television,etc...Really, that articles on wiki about all that father-son relationship is so nonsensical that its scary there are still people like u who ACtually do pay attention....
I won't even explain why its nonsensical cos it just is....if only it were that easy to turn gay...pls look again at my post, 1st one IN DETAIL again, i know u've already done so, but pls read it does state why i believe being gay is a natural all ur 'evidence' about 'inconclusive' evidence regarding natural gays just don't sound convincing, i would know, i do have alot of contact with gay people's blogs, online diaries, gay friends, experience...etc..there is overwhelming research that now show there is the possibility of a gay gene and if u pay attention even NARTH keep attacking the wealth of evidence in medical journals which now point to the existence of a gay gene...the fact that NARTH is so worried about all this info just shows how MOST respectable researchers and scientist are confident of a gay gene whilst only right wing conservative Christian groups like NARTH believe in the gay mental disease theory, that u r suffering from 'sexual brokenness'...please, give me a break...such bigoted homophobic thinking!! just why is loving members of the same sex 'sexual brokenness'?!!! the articles never tell u except the usual 'oh, cos u can't lead a fulfilled happy life....' errrr, says who? Oh of cos, i forgot, from the conservative gay-therapy people who are NOT gay and don't know much about being gay but seem to like to jump to absurd conclusions that being gay 'cannot lead you to a fulfilling happy life' they have any credibility...

And the therapy programs, the ex-gay already admitted that the failure rate is extremely high, even his 'high' success rate is only 65 percent which is very low and could be exaggerated figure just to prove that he is what happens to the many who fail....ask them to try again....seriously i'm against reparative therapy cos more harm is done than any harm that could ever come from leading he gay lifestyle...there is just so much evidence out there that the therapy is seriouslydiscredited, extremely harmful...ur research is so biased sometimes i really wonder HOW, LIKE HOW u can tell me u are an objective person when u consistently 'research' those organisations and sites which are opposed to gays and believe in a specific agenda and theory such as gayness is an illness?? Obviously anything u find is going to support ur own biased and bigoted views....but of cos i'm guilty of the same cos i only read gay-positive information and sources and never anti-gay therapy type sources and so i want to thank u for giving me the opportunity to read that ex-gay's link cos i did find it helpful....however reading more only serves to reinforce my beliefs that being gay is not wrong, not diminish it cos ur arguments and ur evidence is all seriously flawed, misguided and outdated...
Also nowhere did the ex-gay canvass why there should be change, only that people who want change should be given the opportunity....and his mention of 'failures' of 'leaders and counsellors' u're probably not aware of....i'll fill u in on this cos i know about his groups 'Exodus' and 'Choices' a long time ago, they're a conservative anti-gay Christian group whom have a flawed ideology like urs based on contempt for the gays (when i mean contempt i dun mean hate, cos i know they and u don't hate or dislike gays, but underlying ur basis for arguing for change of homosexuals is UNDENIABLY cos u guys feel homosexuality is wrong, is a flawed condition, and is an UNACCEPTABLE condition)
Ok bck, to why there is mention of 'failures of leaders and psychologist' in that articles, its cos of VERY high profile 'exposures' on the founder of Exodus i think, and some other ex-gay counsellors in Exodus or Choices who were supposed to have 'succeeded' in changing 'to str8' but it was revealed in the press and by undercover journalists that they were secretly frequenting gay bars, and having gay sex YEARS even whilst in Exodus and claiming that they had recovered...i think the leader of Exodus even fell in love with his founding partner for Exodus (how hypocritical) and the two left Exodus thats y the ex-gay had to mention it cos it was pretty big and a big discredit to those advocating 'change is possible' when even the leaders of the 'therapy movement' failed to change and instead eloped together...go check it out, i can't remember where i saw this story but its true, even ur link mentioned this failure of leaders...i'm just trying to fill u in on what that meant in case u didn't know the significance...

About marriage being threatened by gay marriage, well read my very 1st post on the 'gay issue' cos i made it VERY CLEAR why i think homosexuality is not affecting heterosexual families and the marriage rate so ur statement that gay marriage in the netherlands has caused a decline in marriage rates overall is ignorant and bull crap...i get very pissed when people try to blame society;s problems such as failing marriages and low marriage rates on homosexuals...just a case of scapegoating a minority group...pls read my 1st post again...i made it inexplicably clear where the problem lies in low marriage rates now (eg.. young ppl don't want commitment, want freedom, women value careers over babies now,etc)...and high divorce trend please don't write ignorant statements about family needs 'protection' from those homosexuals cos its absolutely illogical and bigoted...

And u blame me for saying u r bigoted, cos u r from what u r writing, its just typical conservative gay-bashing bigotry...

Your comment on how gays don't want long term committed monogamous relationships is also NONSENSE i REPEAT NONSENSE...cos i can tell u i know and read alot of gay ppl's thoughts, the VAST MAJORITY do yearn for long term and are committed to long term monogamous relationships...but many aren't confident that they can actually put it in practice or whether it will actually work in the gay world in PRACTICAL TERMS...but saying that they don't strive to achieve long term monogamous relationships is just so ignorant and gay-hating that i don't even know if there could be an even MORE INSULTING comment on gays...i'm sure many gay-friendly str8s would agree with me on this one...
Well, i hope i've answered most of ur queries, and thanks for ur inputs and comments and having this discussion...i do hope that one day, not me, but YOU will come to ur senses and let ur HEART decide instead of ur stubborn bigoted brain (and i mean this with some sincerety, not trying to attack u or say u r stupid and beyond help, cos i know u've been sincere in discussing this gay issue with me!) offence intended...and hey, at least i've actually spent the time to read thru all ur lengthy links and detailed comments!!

jw said...

Firstly, thanks for your post, I appreciate the discussion that you bring. I appreciate that you endeavour to let me "wake up" and see the light. So I hope you will answer some of my requests below.

I admit that I did sound quite bigoted in my first few posts, and it's because my opinion on this is quite firm. I cannot help but notice that your reply also sounded very bigoted, and partially non-objective. I know we are all emotional human beings, but to maintain objectivity on discussing an issue I believe we should not think with our "heart"

You wrote
"our hearts are telling us that there's nothing so wrong about liking someone of the same sex"

"but YOU will come to ur senses and let ur HEART decide instead of ur stubborn bigoted brain"

1) From your first post
"however i believe that those whom are straight but 'turned gay' will change bck straight again when they are given the proper treatment"

Can you give me some examples of the above, where a mature straight man turned gay, and then straight again?

2) And I would seriously like for you to help me understand that a MAJORITY of gays want a long-term monogamous relationship. Please provide me with any links and testimonies to indicate that majority of gays indeed want to have long-term monogamous relationships. I am seriously interested and would be more than happy to be proven wrong, because I will be relieved to know actually.

3) Also, you haven't commented on the audio clip I sent you, from This is clear indication that it is not just Christians who hold this kind of viewpoint.

4) You haven't given me a well reasoned OBJECTIVE rationale on why a person who develops sexual orientation towards a child, a sibling, a mother/father, is different to someone who develops sexual oreientation towards the same sex. Why do you see some of them as being wrong, and the other being ok? Being objective means, discarding the social stigma which has been attached to those issues.
How do you know that there isn't an "incest gene" if there is a "gay gene". Oh, and please provide the studies that you have read which indicates that a "gay gene" exists.

5) You also didn't comment on polygamy. I am sure that you know that polygamy, incest, these things have been common in human societies throughout history. If a man is able to support more than one wife, and those same women are fine with the man having multiple wives, then why not let them? Who are we to say that they are wrong? We want to let gays get married too after all, shouldn't we be fair and let all adults freely choose how they want to live their lives?

6) Also, what do you think of my commment "It is natural that a government wants to give preferances to marriages which procreate if you look at the big picture and think about the responsibility that the government has for it's nation. There is nothing stopping gays living under the same roof and having a relationship. The government wants to recognise and give benefits to families which procreate and provide for the next generation of the nation"

If we can't have an objective discussion, and your main arguments are that "the current trend in many nations are that we are encouraging gays to embrace their sexuality, so it must be right", and because "my heart says it's right"

So, I guess there is a world-wide trend that says ex-enemies of Japan from WWII should just let go of the past, and be progressive and forward thinking, as they have done in Europe re Germany. So this must be right, as indicated by polls.

There is a world-wide trend where people place greater importance on self, rather than family. Hence the low-birth rates(we will feel this in the future). People have learned to enjoy staying single and spending their income on themselves, or marrying and not having kids, because they put more emphasis on self-enjoyment, and don't want the financial strains of having a child (Even though society itself can be seen as creating these conditions). Forgoing the idea of raising the next generation. I guess this must also be right, because that is the new trend, we should embrace this.

People are spending less time interacting in real life and more via electronic means. This is the trend so it must be right.

People are spending so much on cosmetics, plastic surgery, trying to be skinny, stay skinny, getting stressed if they gain 1kg. This is the new trend, so it must be right.

I guess whatever is the current trend must be right. 50, 100 years ago, people were just lost, we are much wiser now. 50, 100 years from now, this world will become just that little closer to perfect.

I think we are on differnt planes, your comment about letting "my heart" decide I think sums that up. There are issues which I probably would let my "Heart" decide. But this isn't one of them. I'm from Mars and you are form Venus? :)

Anyway thanks again, and I didn't take offence at all, and I hope you didn't either :)