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.

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.

"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.