although the thread deviated from the original news, the representative that created the project is an evangelical Christian and he believes that "to be gay is a right, not a privilege". although the Catholic church influence is a bit insignificant in this matter, the evangelical churches are much more present in the congress. and while they are naturally intolerant, they appear more in the media when the government acts position homosexuals as different. for example, when the ministry of education conceived an infamous "gay kit" that was meant for schools to introduce kids to the "gay world".

Most people choose to stay quiet on the matter in the fear of being labeld as racists and and fasicst by  ''politcally correct people'' like yourself and sapphi

Not that they shouldn't be proud of their history, but that they should especially celebrate it. I mean, the whole world today is pretty much run through by the achievements of White Men. You celebrate what is outside that, because it is less common, in terms of cultural impact

Though the White Men built their glory on the achievements of a lot of other races, given Chinese gunpowder, Arab or Persian (forget which) compasses, astronomy, and math

Really now? Are you really considering things like mothers day or Father's Day to be any sort of equivalent of a 'straight pride' holiday. I'm getting tired of the logic that gay people are this horribly supressed group that need this special treatment reserved for them as the absence of it is somehow prejudice. If I were gay, I would be embrassed about this line of thinking that gay people have to be treated differently whenever equality is deserved.

1) I read that as he not being confortable with excessively affeminate men or guys hooking up (granted, i may be reading it wrong). I realise you'll probably tell me "well that's homophobic" but it's in this sense that i think the whole thing is overblown.

I sure as hell am not confortable with those things, but I don't ostracise homosexuals. If I was in a position to give someone a job, I wouldn't take that into account, etc.

For the most part, I can coexist with gays with no problems (as he puts) but I might rather not be around some extreme examples, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that, no one should be forced to like something about someone, all we have to do is respect. Not being confortable and disrespecting are two very different things.

And these extreme cases are not off-putting because of their sexual orientation. I'm sure lots of people wouldn't want to be around extreme machos, or hippies, or beggars. Actually, those groups are probably much worse off than gays in public acceptance. It's just about being too different, so spining that as homophoby kind of misses the point in many cases in my opinion.

Hell, I have long hair and don't shave on top of being an atheist. It's more likely I'd be denied a job than them, yet you don't see me parading :P

2) Great answer if you are going for effect, poor answer if you want a decent discussion :P

It's ridiculous to believe no one ever plays victim or exagerates their suffering, and it's even more ridiculous to believe a person is different in that simply because it's part of a minority.

3) And I'm pretty sure I know Brazil (and specially the metropolitan areas, which are the subject matter) a lot better than you do. Really, I believe you to be mostly rational, so tell me why are you telling me how my country is? Fundamentalist Catholic? You got to be kidding me. Catholics here are not very observant at all, mainly unatending and mostly just catholic on paper and holidays. Actually, most are hereticaly open. I mean it, it's not very hard to find so called catholics who are also adepts of spiritism, candomblé and so on. So much so that the fastest growing new church incorporates elements of those religions.The few actual Catholics are mostly old people, and even these are warm to gays.

The more fervorous adepts are the ones on the smaller denominations (a mixed bag of really religious but pretty accepting and foundamentalist people) and some people on things like Igreja Universal, of which I was talking earlier. the big picture, anyway (and here it's important to distinguish the more actually adept north and the center to south, which is where São Paulo is and what I'm talking about) shows a people where most denominate themselves something but go by life without really taking any of that into account.

They may be theoretically against homosexualism (note I didn't type homosexuals) but the huge majority doesn't really discriminate in any significant way.They wouldn't deny a job or avoid talking to gay people, for example.

That's not to say gays face no problems because of their orientation, but the situation here is not nearly as bad as you seem to believe it is. The population at large is pretty acceptant. If there are problems they stem from a small MINORITY which encompasses things from neo-nazi types to religious foundamentalists. Guess what, these people are not changing their minds because of a parade. Quite the opposite.

4) Sure, gay bashing day. You're pretty quick to judge, aren't you? Look, IF that's really what it turns out to be I bet you it will be heavily criticized (by the people at large, not just homosexuals) and find little adherence beyond the group promoting it. It will backfire dearly, and that's assuming it even actually passes.

It is though, it's not main goal wouldn't be to celebrate white peoples goals or aims or w.e it'd be to outcast black people. That isn't the aim of say the opposite. Black pride (if there were such a thing) wouldn't be for the purpose of being racist or w/e against white people, it would be to celebrate black history.

It's pretty black and white, excuse the pun.

Maybe they stay quiet because they're afraid they didn't understand what it's really all about and don't wanna say something stupid...