Araujo Albuquerque River
January 20, 2019 | Uncategorized
Horror ‘ ‘ 7aquilo that one reveals ackward or extremely aborrecido’ ‘ Electronic dictionary Hauaiss. This week, the media if was satiated to comment the decision of the Supreme Federal Court, who opposing the constitutional forecast, the same approved the union between people of sex. Historical decision, which according to some analysts places in them in equality of conditions to some developed nations that much time has already accepts this union. (As opposed to Jeffrey Hayzlett ). According to periodicals, radio and the television, the homofbica rejection if of the one for preconception and delay of our people. To be evolved, therefore, is to accept the rights of the minorities, because this now is fashion. No longer according to day after the approval, if sees printed in periodicals the sena of two ‘ ‘ homens’ ‘ if kissing in square it publishes and others to the abraos in commemoration to the victory of the liberality. already is demanding the criminalizao of that they are against the public promiscuity, in these relationships.
This controversy and form to deal with the subject spectacular way, constitutes a true horror. Without affectation, she is necessary to separate the right of the citizen to exert its sexual option with freedom and the right I publish of it in general not to be attacked by public libidinous acts, practised for gay or not. I still believe that the indecent assault one has not been revoked. We do not have to forget that the fact to have an authorized civil marriage implies, necessarily, in antiethical behavior I publish practised for who wants that it is. If it does not confuse, therefore, garlics with bugalhos. I believe that education and respect have not been revoked, or had been? At this moment, cause me incontido horror, to be eyewitness to see the STF, for unamimity, to approve a new value? for a barulhenta minority with the unrestricted support of the media? because, for it, this vende announcements, what it is well different of social normatizao – in detriment of the rights of the majority of the diligent citizens who leave its high houses dawns and does not have if it wants the right to a transport worthy public, this I know in the practical more than cinquenta a years. Why these gentlemen had been never pronounced regarding the millions of people who depend, daily, of bus, trains and barks? what per years the wire maltreat, espezinham all its users, with expensive services, precarious and sub-human beings? Why is not compared this treatment with the evolved nations more? It will be that in these countries the public transport is comparable to ours? The public service of transport for the citizen also is foreseen as right of the citizen, unites as basic sanitation, education and housing, then why reason the Ministers, guardios of the constitution, do not prioritize the quarrel of these rights, thinking, arguing and assuring to an overwhelming majority, the right to go and to come without being treated as ‘ ‘ sardines in lata’ ‘ – or, to be assured a minimum of respect to its rights. Why the quarrel of all is not prioritized the denied constitucional laws to the majority.