Recently, I learned from the LGBT community (people with non-traditional sexual orientation) website that the representative of this community consider “Aravot” as well as a number of other media “homophobes”, in other words, advocates of intolerance based on sexual orientation. Homosexuals have come to this conclusion based on the following facts: the preliminary draft of constitutional amendments reads “Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and found a family according to their free will.” Herewith, it is clear that a woman and a man get married, in other words, representatives of different sex. The CE Venice Commission noted in its conclusion that this Article should not be interpreted as a “ban of legal recognition of homosexual marriages.”
Generally, this Commission is an expertise and advisory body, whose advice is not binding for Armenia as well as for any other country. For example, it seems to me that the suggestion by the “Venetians” about the NA “stable majority” idea moving from the Constitution to the Electoral Code is quite rational, and the remarks that we should legally recognize homosexual marriages is beyond the rationality. Marriage is a union of a man and a woman, the other unions (which, of course, is the personal matter of those who unite) cannot be called a marriage. But this is my personal opinion, which has the same value as the one of the Venice Commission or in the homosexual’s website.
“Aravot” published the opinion of Human rights activist, Arthur Sakunts, who agrees with the “Venetians”, as well as the opinions of Father Komitas and Gurgen Yeghiazaryan who do not agree with this Commission. Is it a sufficient reason for blaming in “homophobia”? I guess, not.
I do not impose my views to anyone. There might be people in “Aravot” editorial as well as among our readers who agree with the Venice Commission, Arthur Sakunts, Father Komitas or Gurgen Yeghiazaryan. It is normal. It would be bizarre if the Venice Commission’s, any website’s and anyone’s, including my words were irrefutable truth for anyone, with which it is impossible to argue.
Read also
Realizing that I am far away from being perfect and have many mistakes and sins, I do not blame or judge anyone. But why it seems to the homosexuals that their behavior and mode of life are so perfect that no one has the right not only to criticize it but also to publish critical opinions. This approach does not seem quite democratic to me.
And maybe everything is much more simple, and from the perspective of business, it is more appropriate finding “homophobes” as much as possible and accept the image of a “persecuted victim”.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
