Vocalist.org archive


From:  "Caio Rossi" <caiorossi@t...>
"Caio Rossi" <caiorossi@t...>
Date:  Tue Jun 12, 2001  4:20 pm
Subject:  Re: [vocalist] 2Be out?


Hi, Listers

I haven't been participating on this list lately, and in any music-related
activity or even listening to music in the last months because of many,
many, MANY personal problems I have been dealing with lately, and doing
anything related to music, which is something I love, will only bring me
more frustration. I hope to be getting better and closer into music soon.

But I've been receiving Vocalist's e-mails and have been saving the topics
I'm most interested in for later reading ( those amount to some hundreds
now ). Trying to classify the present topic into the delete or
save-for-later-reading category I just couldn't believe what I read, so I
decided to get rid of it promptly by sending the present msg:

Lisa said she doesn't want her children to see same-sex couples holding
hands, and she also said she considers homosexuality something wrong, but I
think she used another word ( I think 'unacceptable' ). Some people reacted
saying that she was being moralist and basing what she thinks on religion.

The point is: so what??? Why can't she be religious and consider
homosexuality something wrong? Why can't she teach her children that it's
wrong, if she thinks so, and wait for a time when she considers her children
to be prepared to be exposed to to 'something evil', or whatever she names
it?

She can't and nobody else can assault gay people on streets, she can't
impose heterosexuality on gays ( I don't even think she means that ), or
decide for them what's right or wrong, but she and anybody else may consider
homosexuality something wrong and decide what to expose their children to!

I completely disagree with her in terms of what she thinks homosexuality is
( something wrong ) and the way the raises her kids ( in that aspect ), but
THERE'S NOTHING OBJECTIVE TO SAY THAT SHE'S WRONG. If she says that due to
religious reasons, what should she follow: a book she considers to be holy
or liberal people's opinion about that??

Moral does not come from facts. It's a hierarchical organization of facts,
where some are considered BETTER than others according to a rating system
that varies from people to people, religion to religion, civilization to
civilization. She can't impose her rating system on other people, BUT WE
CAN'T EITHER. The fact that homosexuality is something that occurs naturally
does not mean it's OK with God, for instance. BTW, that would be the same as
saying that a baby child falling down from the top of an apartment building
because it didn't know the consequences is 'natural', so OK!!!

Someone said something about us South-Americans being more OK with
expressing feeling in public, like kissing and holding hands. Yeah, that's
true, but it's also true that we have many more pregnant teenage girls and
prostitute kids. It's also true that our children start thinking about sex
at an extremely early age, and that PSICHANALISTS, which can be read as
ATHEISTS, PEDAGOGUES, PSYCHOLOGISTS AND PSICHIATRISTS in general are all
concerned about that. If you watch TV in Brazil you'll see what 'being OK
with sex' means in practical terms: cameras with gynaecological closes of
G-stripped women IN THE AFTERNOON. And I'm not talking about pay-per-view
channels. I'm talking about VHF ones.

Just don't try to solve a problem ( puritanism ) by throwing civilization
back into barbarian levels and don't be as stupid as to suggest that being
moralist is WRONG, because that's contradictory by itself. Having the right
to express your feelings and sexual preference in public, without being
molested, is the minimum a lay state is supposed to guarantee. But that has
nothing to do with morality and a virtual community of vocalists does not
share anything but interest in singing to ever agree on that.

Bye,

Caio Rossi


emusic.com