English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In May 2011, the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) recognized same-sex unions as a family entity, what sets new directions to the homosexual movements in Brazil. However, even though this institutional milestone indicates a paradigm shift, it is noticeable that unfavorable notions on same-sex relationships and the rights of sexual minorities are still being spread throughout society. Aiming to outline how law and legal institutions have influenced people’s social life, this paper presents an empirical study on the discourses used by STF ministers in their decisions. Based upon the assumptions of critical discourse analysis, an evaluation has been made on the justifications given to the votes. The results indicated the existence of arguments that varied from the recognition of equality to the emphasis on difference, proving that, even though the decision was unanimous, there is still much to be conquered towards the accomplishment of equality.

Homoafetividade e direito: um estudo dos argumentos utilizados pelos ministros do STF ao reconhecerem a união homoafetiva no Brasil