Nintendo Switch review: Hands on with the intuitive modular console and its disappointing games…
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?
Everyone has got rights and 'Amnesty Internationlal' are all about helping all people realise their's. Whatever their sex, sexual persuasion, creed, colour or religion.
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.
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.
It does not say "abuses of human rights which measure sufficiently on the following scale:..."
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.
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.
"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.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.