Gay Marriage Laws

  morddwyd 16:53 08 Dec 2011

Amnesty International have joined a coalition seeking a change to they gay marriage laws in Scotland

I know that gays are being persecuted even to the point of death in some places, but is gay marriage really something for Amnesty to be spending resources on?

  Forum Editor 18:23 08 Dec 2011

"is gay marriage really something for Amnesty to be spending resources on?"

Amnesty International obviously thinks so.

  morddwyd 20:06 09 Dec 2011

From their website

"uncover and halt human rights abuse across the globe. "

I just think that, globally, there are much worse abuses that Amnesty should be expending resources on.

The fact that gays can't marry may be an abuse of human rights but on a scale which includes Syria, Burma, China and women in Afghanistan it must be a pretty low priority.

  Joseph Kerr 22:30 09 Dec 2011

It does not say "abuses of human rights which measure sufficiently on the following scale:..."

  Forum Editor 00:05 10 Dec 2011

"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.

  Joseph Kerr 01:10 10 Dec 2011

Can they only do on ething at a time? They're wuite a large group are they not?

I'm off now; there is no way you, Admiral, will emerge from this looking good.

  morddwyd 09:42 10 Dec 2011

My original point is not about whether this should be a concern of Amnesty's, as obviously it should, but whether Amnesty should be spending what must, after all, be limited resources (not just financial) on a relatively, and I repeat relatively, trivial issue.

  Forum Editor 10:51 10 Dec 2011

Admiral Allstar

"its about human rights abuses and quite frankly i think persecution is a higher priority."

I assume that there are people at Amnesty who are capable of making such judgements. Prioritising human rights issues is always a risky business, because of course someone whose human rights are being denied doesn't have to be in some far-flung land, ruled by a despot - there are people in every major city in the UK who are being denied their human rights on a daily basis.

Amnesty identifies cases which, in its opinion, are worthy of support, and it provides that support if it can. Most of us know nothing of Amnesty's daily work, but from time to time along comes a case, like the one that precipitated this thread, and people start making judgements - usually based on a little knowledge and a lot of opinion.

  morddwyd 11:36 10 Dec 2011

"people start making judgements - usually based on a little knowledge and a lot of opinion."

And without such there would be little debate this forum!

  Forum Editor 12:27 10 Dec 2011


I wasn't criticising the way our forum works - just introducing a bit of a reality check.

  Forum Editor 12:29 11 Dec 2011

Admiral Allstar

I can find nothing to argue with in the part of your post addressed to me, so yes, I'm happy to agree that we differ slightly on this particular case, and leave it at that.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

FIFA 19 review

Design a vector map packed with creatures and landmarks

iPhone XS vs iPhone X: What is the difference?

Comment désactiver la lecture automatique des vidéos sur Chrome ?