The farce of 'heterosexual pride day'

Two principles guided the 1988 Constitution of the Republic, considered by scholars such as Ada Pellegrini Grinover to be one of the best in the world. The first was that of 'non-discrimination'. This concept definitively ended any discrimination or prejudice in the Brazilian legal system. Minorities finally had the protection of the State. Furthermore, society was constitutionally mandated that from then on, social hatred based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc., would no longer be accepted.

The second major principle was that of 'compensation'. Whenever someone or some group finds themselves unprotected or disadvantaged, there will be compensatory systems. Thus, the Public Defender's Office is a compensatory system for less fortunate people. The Consumer Protection Law, the public hospital, the public school, priority in queues for pregnant women, the elderly, and the disabled are all compensatory systems. These are models of 'compensation' for those who, due to a permanent or temporary situation, need to be brought up to the level of efficiency of people who are fully capable, socially or economically.

Both criteria – compensation and non-discrimination – are perfectly fair, rational, ethical, and legal. They do not involve any discrimination. Compensating a pregnant woman with an 8-month belly who tires more easily by giving her a special, reserved seat on public transport is not 'privileging' her. It is fair, rational, and logical.

But there was a problem in this whole chain. First psychological, and then expanding to a sociological pattern, in the conservative mindset. Because some minorities, such as homosexuals, who were already frowned upon by these same conservatives, 'celebrated' in public squares, this 'bothered' them.

Only a thinking fool would believe that a Constitution or a regularly democratic legal system would want to create privileges for minorities or even majorities. When gays are 'allowed' to celebrate, jump, dress up in costumes, illuminate themselves, and party in the streets without being beaten, insulted, humiliated, and stoned, they are simply given the right, a right inherent in citizenship and granted to anyone, to celebrate, smile, play, and live. Everything is perfectly normal, without being arrested by a retrograde, backward, and imbecilic State, as all dictatorial and authoritarian States are. And Brazil used to be like that.

The psychosocial problem that tormented conservatives, authoritarians, religious fundamentalists, reactionaries, and other mentally anorexic individuals lacking healthy contemporary social knowledge and freedom of thought was the 'party'. If gays enjoyed their compensation and their constitutional freedom without making 'noise', these mentally tormented conservatives wouldn't be bothered.

This week saw the emergence of one of the most bizarre and laughable news stories a democracy could produce. Even a law student would find it strange. The president of the Chamber of Deputies, Eduardo Consentino da Cunha, wants to occupy the Chamber's agenda – and public funds – to vote on a 'heterosexual pride day'. That's right.

We could launch a day of pride for those who breathe, who drink water, who eat, who work, who live. Heterosexuality is biological, animal, reproductive and... obvious. It's not something to be proud of or 'unprideed' about.

The 'logic' behind the parliamentary proposal – or the embedded vengeful hatred – of this bizarre heterosexual pride day is that heterosexuals need compensation or defense; that they are 'threatened' by some hidden social force.

That cheeky heterosexuals – and voluptuous heterosexuals – would decide to hold a march on Paulista Avenue about this so-called pride is something that would make anyone smile, even showing interest and attention. If Femen came, with their breasts on display, even better.

But for a branch of government to concern itself with this is an absurd waste of public money that could be two things. One, a lack of knowledge of advanced legal and social models that harmoniously accept plural and reinvented lives for any person, in whatever way they wish. A product of contemporary times, a respect for their 'autonomy of will'. The other, the resentment of a backward religious fundamentalism that 'uses' the term 'family' to hide prejudice against people who want to be with each other, who are together, or who love each other in a way that is different from the traditional man & woman couple.

Once again, the root of this is moralistic, authoritarian, and obtuse religious fundamentalism, now seeking revenge against gay people. Sad, backward, and uncultured minds.

From the blog General Observatory