I think that there are higher priorities for Amnesty to concentrate on rather than the legal definition of what marriage is.
People are dying in Syria and other places. People are being persecuted around the world. Whilst the legal definition of marriage may be important to some Scottish Gays it pales into insignificance against that backdrop - they are not being persecuted.
Joesph Kerr - no it does not, but surely the attention should be on the more perssing issues like people dying, being tortured etc. Gay marriage in Scotland is not in the same league under any definition. I make no comment about the pro's & cons's of the marriage issue, but rather that there are more needy. How about the gay population in Uganda
Are they not more worthy? The UK state is not (to my knowledge) actively seeking to destroy the gay population of the UK.
"Gay marriage in Scotland is not in the same league under any definition."
You obviously don't understand the aims and functions of Amnesty International. It's not about only dealing with human rights abuses if they affect large numbers of people - it's about 'human rights abuse'. There's a difference.
Amnesty will fight on behalf of a single person if necessary, and it has done just that on many occasions.
"You obviously don't understand the aims and functions of Amnesty International."
How patronising and takes my comment out of context. I thought better of you.
I do not say that they should not partake in this issue, but rather that I believe they should concentrate more on those whose suffering at the present time is harsher than deciding what the legal definition of marriage is. If you really want to get into it, then Amnesty may be barking up the wrong tree on this one.
Suppose someone, eg a Vicar(for want of a better example), is forced to conduct a gay marriage which they believe to be against their faith then surely Amnesty should then help them to stop the abuse of their human right. There is no easy answer to the issue.
"I'm off now; there is no way you, Admiral, will emerge from this looking good."
So my concern for those facing physical harm is greater than those who argue about the definition of marriage. Sorry my priorities are wrong to you. I am not saying it isnt an issue for discussion but lets stop people being harmed first. As the FE's post says - its about human rights abuses and quite frankly i think persecution is a higher priority.