Discursos sobre famílias homoparentais no Congresso Nacional Brasileiro

• Ano de defesa: 2016
• Autor(a) principal: Horst, Cláudio Henrique Miranda
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo; BR; Mestrado em Política Social; Centro de Ciências Jurídicas e Econômicas; UFES; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Política Social
• Palavras-chave em Português: Families; Conjugality; Homosexuality; Homoparental families; National Congress; Homossexualidades; Conjugalidade; Famílias homoparentais; Congresso Nacional; Família; Homossexualidade; Casamento entre homossexuais - Legislação; Direitos dos homossexuais; Serviço Social; 32
• Link de acesso: http://repositorio.ufes.br/handle/10/8769

This study aims at analyzing the discourse permeating the Brazilian law bills at the National Congress, which propose regulating the civil union/domestic partnership/marriage between people of the same sex, and identifying the characteristics these discourses have had. As specific objectives we propose to analyze the law bills submitted to approval at the National Congress about civil union between people of the same sex in order to identify the groups involved in the debates while these bills move through; identify the concept of family in the discourses among the groups so as to identify whether — and how — the concept of traditional family is defended within these discourses; and describe how the conceptual clash takes place during the discussions about law bills aiming at samesex civil union recognition. Our analysis is based on dialectical critical method. As far as methodology is concerned, we carried out documental research involving law bills regarding same-sex civil union and marriage. Seven (7) law bills proposed between 1995 and 2013 have been identified. When analyzing the discourses taking place while these bills moved through, we identified the dispute for two antagonistic social projects, which could be summarized in a plural project of society versus a society based on denial of diversity, on a single view of world. Between the recognition of the homoparental families and the defense of the nuclear bourgeois model, the defense has expressed the denial of family diversity. They deny the totality of social life and the several transformations that have changed families. They defend a concept of patriarchal family, justified by the wish to procreate, regarded as natural and constituted only between a man and a woman, based on the Christian Bible. This model is also defended by the moral concept of liberalism. We listed the discourse of political subjects in two groups: in favor and against. Among the discourses of those in favor, we found mainly five justifications: 1) the defense of recognizing diversity and the existence of diversified families; 2) the need of the State to regulate rights and duties of homoaffective couples; 3) the constitutional argument, by the fundamental rights of each individual recognized by the 1988 Brazilian Constitution and the defense of secularism; 4) the separation between marriage (for heterosexuals) and civil union/civil partnership (for homosexuals); 5) the need of legal recognition by the legislative power. On the other hand, the opposing discourses have gone through four key questions: 1) the risk of demeaning, destroying the family conceived under God‘s format to be recognized as a natural institution between two individuals of different sexes; 2) Recognition of homosexual orientation as something normal, and that aims to be naturalized; 3) the unconstitutionality of law bills that attempt to overlook the 1988 Brazilian Constitution; 4) the risk of adoption by homoaffective couples. In this setting, the construction of counter-hegemony requires permanent pedagogical action in today‘s reality, especially if we consider the inner diversity of LGBT movement itself, which needs to build bridges instead of fences. The discussions had an attitude that was limited to the intransigent defense of marriage, remitting to the small political sphere only, as in the Gramscian understanding. In conclusion, we have identified that the conceptual debates taking place at the Brazilian National Congress are permeated by the defense of bourgeois patriarchal nuclear model — based on the Christian Bible — versus the recognition not of a single model represented only by homoparental families, but in favor of family diversity, based on official documents, on partisan platforms and on the defense of a plural and democratic society.