This distinguishing boarding of the body by means of the religion implies a relation of control and being able, normatizada under the influence of partner-cultural context and politician, who establishes the acceptable social contours, so that let us have a vision so only naturalistic concerning what he means the homossexualidade (FOCAULT, 1988). To follow models, they are which will be, lead us it a painful freedom: the freedom of a continuous to create, to make responsible by itself, making of itself a molded workmanship, that hinder in them to create a life way that admits the plurality, a way that recrie of complete and autocrtica form, ways to sobrepujar any species of normatividade that is harmful to the exercise of the democracy and the freedom. The positioning of the religions in relation to the homossexualidade has been reason of many controversies and controversies in the society (BRASH, 1998). But, what we have that to have in consideration is that the studies had advanced in this direction and the homossexualidade is not considered an illness, as has years the age behind, the studies of the cultural anthropology point with respect to the understanding of the homossexualidade in the societies of adverse form, that is, it is part of the world that we know, therefore, she is seen in different ways in diverse cultures. What it exists of problematic in our society occidental person is that the bodies they are carrying of values, inculcados for gestures that become them the place of being able, gestures that if they transform into dominant cultural values and that they develop a system of exclusions based on literal readings of fundamentalist religious texts and that if they become the normative one to support the bases of the relations in the society. These questions are in slow maturation in our society, but the homossexualidade is a fact that if imposes and that it cannot be denied or be disrespected by the religion and the society in itself.