I didn't realise Coopers supported the Australian Bible Society

[Cerveja]

Would give my left testicle to know how this happened. Was it

 

New marketing whiz kids announces in the weekly meeting that he has a great idea for "repositioning the brand"

 

OR

 

Dr Tim says I'm the farkin boss around here and if I say we put bible verses on our beer, we damn well put verses on the beer. Make it happen.

[Quokka]

Amazing - I missed the start of this thread, but it was only two days ago and already there is four pages of BS and rhetoric based on miscontrued premises.

 

I myself am an RC - Retired Catholic. But I'm not bitter about it and while these days I'm more around Agnostic/Buddhist, I did complete a lot of Bible Study in my Pentecostal period, so I think I am qualified to comment on this subject:

 

The Bible Society is not fundamentalist at all, it is similar to Jesuits in that it concentrates on theological research and making the Bible available.

 

I personally believe in the separation of Church and State (Irish Catholic, after all - we know well what the reverse produces,) but I also believe that no group should have rights that override another's. The Bible itself does not profess a lot of what has been claimed here, or by so-called "fundamentalists," homosexuals are not any worse than any other sinner but no-one may be elected to Church leadership if they are professors of sin. Homosexuals have all the rights of heterosexuals in all Australian States (Certain Territories have not caught up,) I do not believe they should have the right to persecute Christians for their beliefs. In fact there are Christian Churches that will "marry" homosexuals, though they will not perform a parody of the traditional Marriage between man and woman.

 

I regularly eat Halal, as most and the best butchers in my area are Halal, and if I am hosting or attending an event where traditional Muslims and/or Jews are likely to attend I will respect their beliefs - but I don't make any effort to hide my brewing or distilling gear if they visit.

 

I have also participated in a number of Muslim events, including fasting prayer at Masjid during Ramadan - in fact when I was married I would abstain from alcohol completely when visiting her family's country. I also try to respect Buddhist beliefs in China, Hindu in India, etc,. and remove my shoes when visiting houses of Arabic or Asian occupants. It's not that hard.

 

While I no longer hold to any religious faith myself, I extend this respect to all people, including Christians.

[PXR-5]

 

... we have gone from Coopers putting a bible verse on their cartons to holding them responsible for anti-gayism' date=' anti-abortion, all the outrages of the middle ages and promoting something essentially evil. If a verse from the bible is so irrelevant and fantastical, why get so upset about it?[/quote']

 

I think you'll find it's the apparent endorsement of the Bible Society's religious political agenda that people are upset about, not the verses being on cans.

 

"Bible Society's religious political agenda" - Please enlighten us on what their religious and/or political agenda is ... I didn't know they had any agenda other than distributing bibles.

 

Theism is about belief' date=' gnosticism is about knowledge. Richard Dawkins is 99.9% an agnostic atheist and 0.1% deist by your description, although of course atheism has no doctrine so calling anybody it's "messiah" is absurd ... but you know that and are clearly just pushing buttons [img']wink[/img][/quote=King Ruddager]

 

Don't know how that would add up. By my calcs it would be 99.9% atheist and .001% agnostic - which means he doesn't know for sure, so is an agnostic (meaning doesn't know).

 

[Graculus]

Reading this https://www.biblesociety.org.au/keep-it-light/

 

I see it says

Keeping it Light is a short series of videos showing that it is possible to have a light discussion on the heaviest topics. It’s one of the ways we’re celebrating 200 years of the Bible and Bible Society in Australia.

 

There's a short series. Wow this is going to be good.

 

[PXR-5]

If gay couples can already adopt children' date=' what is the big issue either way?[/quote']

 

Exactly. Thanks for agreeing with me, I think?

 

I agree that there would not be anything to be gained other than what they already have. My (now) wife and I were together for 7 years and 4 kids before getting married.

 

Why should rule by a minority be better than rule by the majority? Who is to say that one particular minority ( or a group of minorities) should have a right to say what the majority should do? I would prefer no tyranny' date=' however what we see around the world now is tyranny of one kind or another. Regardless of the label they go under, we are being totally controlled by minorities.[/quote']

 

The idea that the world is ruled by minorities is absolute and utter rubbish. It is a ridiculous falsehood perpetuated by people who previously held the power to discriminate on a whim, but they are finally being held to scrutiny for their opinions and actions, and they don't like it.

 

 

This I don't agree with. We are all subject to rule withing our own countries by minorities - for example by a PM (and party big wigs) who unilaterally decide to increase taxes to be given to overseas minorities (like the carbon tax). We have also subjected our Sovereignty to the rules of the UN (non-representative body chosen by minorities within the government) by appropriation of their rule of law under treaty.

 

John

[Graculus]

If gay couples can already adopt children' date=' what is the big issue either way?[/quote']

 

Exactly. Thanks for agreeing with me, I think?

 

I agree that there would not be anything to be gained other than what they already have. My (now) wife and I were together for 7 years and 4 kids before getting married.

 

Why should rule by a minority be better than rule by the majority? Who is to say that one particular minority ( or a group of minorities) should have a right to say what the majority should do? I would prefer no tyranny' date=' however what we see around the world now is tyranny of one kind or another. Regardless of the label they go under, we are being totally controlled by minorities.[/quote']

 

The idea that the world is ruled by minorities is absolute and utter rubbish. It is a ridiculous falsehood perpetuated by people who previously held the power to discriminate on a whim, but they are finally being held to scrutiny for their opinions and actions, and they don't like it.

 

 

This I don't agree with. We are all subject to rule withing our own countries by minorities - for example by a PM (and party big wigs) who unilaterally decide to increase taxes to be given to overseas minorities (like the carbon tax). We have also subjected our Sovereignty to the rules of the UN (non-representative body chosen by minorities within the government) by appropriation of their rule of law under treaty.

 

John

 

What? I don't understand this bit. The carbon tax was never a tax. It was a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which Tony Abbot etc called the carbon tax. Just so they could shout TAX all the time. How was the money raised from it used for "overseas minorities"?

[King Ruddager]

"Bible Society's religious political agenda" - Please enlighten us on what their religious and/or political agenda is ... I didn't know they had any agenda other than distributing bibles.

 

When influential religious groups are trying to influence state policy with their book as justification' date=' it's hard to see something like this as anything other than a politically charged attempt to undermine criticism of such behaviour.

 

Don't know how that would add up. By my calcs it would be 99.9% atheist and .001% agnostic - which means he doesn't know for sure, so is an agnostic (meaning doesn't know).

 

We're splitting hairs on the calculations (in fact, yours literally only adds up to 99.901% ), but something a lot of people don't really understand is what agnostic really means. Generally it's a term used to describe the ground somewhere in between believing one thing and believing another, but it's actually about knowledge. I suppose someone in that middle ground could be described as an "I-don't-know-er", thus agnostic, but if they don't have any theistic beliefs they're also an atheist.

[Gag Halfrunt]

It seems you've opened padoras box of worms here Ruddy.

Entire new threads on the subject and all.

Never seen this forum so busy.

[Graculus]

It seems you've opened padoras box of worms here Ruddy.

Entire new threads on the subject and all.

Never seen this forum so busy.

 

and there's even some posts about homebrewing

[King Ruddager]

It seems you've opened padoras box of worms here Ruddy.

Entire new threads on the subject and all.

Never seen this forum so busy.

 

I know' date=' right? [img']biggrin[/img] I don't think it's out of hand though - good on everyone for keeping it (mostly) civil.

 

Lusty, on the other hand, is bringing John Lennon into this. You know John Lennon, right? He's the guy who said ...

 

Imagine no religion

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

It seems you've opened padoras box of worms here Ruddy.

Entire new threads on the subject and all.

Never seen this forum so busy.

 

and there's even some posts about homebrewing

 

Good thing I reckon.

If it gets people talking on other subjects like brewing.

Sometimes forums like this which i love, can grind to a boring halt.

[Beerlust]

If gay couples can already adopt children' date=' what is the big issue either way?[/quote']

 

Exactly. Thanks for agreeing with me, I think?

 

I agree that there would not be anything to be gained other than what they already have. My (now) wife and I were together for 7 years and 4 kids before getting married.

 

Why should rule by a minority be better than rule by the majority? Who is to say that one particular minority ( or a group of minorities) should have a right to say what the majority should do? I would prefer no tyranny' date=' however what we see around the world now is tyranny of one kind or another. Regardless of the label they go under, we are being totally controlled by minorities.[/quote']

 

The idea that the world is ruled by minorities is absolute and utter rubbish. It is a ridiculous falsehood perpetuated by people who previously held the power to discriminate on a whim, but they are finally being held to scrutiny for their opinions and actions, and they don't like it.

This I don't agree with. We are all subject to rule withing our own countries by minorities - for example by a PM (and party big wigs) who unilaterally decide to increase taxes to be given to overseas minorities (like the carbon tax). We have also subjected our Sovereignty to the rules of the UN (non-representative body chosen by minorities within the government) by appropriation of their rule of law under treaty.

+1

 

As far as the adoption (or acquirement) of children by gay couples & the impact the raising of those children in that dynamic has & will have on those children as they mature & enter the big bad world for themselves, that jury is still out & the ramifications & the affect this has on a percentage of a growing global populous, that is yet to be seen & felt at this point in time (IMHO).

 

Where a couple of same sex adults consent to being in a relationship &/or being married, I have no issue with this. When that same couple wish to adopt or surrogate a child unnaturally I have a BIG problem as the child's best wishes & interests are never considered, nor the impact of being raised by same sex parents will have on the child as it matures.

 

By entering into a same sex relationship you have voluntarily (by natural conditions of procreation) placed yourself in a position where this is no longer an option, & you should understand & be bound by that decision you made freely under no duress.

 

Lusty.

[Gag Halfrunt]

Now that Im in a thread everyone seems to be paying attention to, how about someone turning their thoughts to my cold crashing dilemma which I posted a new thread about.

Thanks in advance.

(You may now return to current discussion)

 

[King Ruddager]

Well since we're talking about "minorities" now ...

 

It's my opinion that as an advanced society we ought to protect our most vulnerable, our unfortunate and the environment.

 

If that means building access ramps and paying a little more to keep the water down-stream clean then so be it.

 

And Anthony - I think the jury is actually in on the whole adoption thing. I don't have any articles at hand, but what I've read is that the most important thing is to have a loving environment than a strict nuclear family. Kids with loving parents perform well, no matter the combination.

[King Ruddager]

Now that Im in a thread everyone seems to be paying attention to' date=' how about someone turning their thoughts to my cold crashing dilemma which I posted a new thread about.

Thanks in advance.

(You may now return to current discussion)

[/quote']

 

Well, you've done it. Now I'm offended and never coming back.

[Gag Halfrunt]

I did say topic can now resume

[Cerveja]

News just in:

 

https://theunaustralian.net/2017/03/14/coopers-and-one-nation-launch-keeping-it-white-campaign/

 

 

[Beerlust]

G'day Ruddy.

Well since we're talking about "minorities" now ...

Love the intro!

It's my opinion that as an advanced society we ought to protect our most vulnerable' date=' our unfortunate and the environment.[/quote']

Of those currently alive I agree totally. My problem is with perpetuating cycles that are not being resolved, nor have been resolved for generations & yet our tax dollars continue to pay for these everlasting band-aid fixes. Our continual foreign aid to African nations for one. The reality is we send foreign aid in millions of our tax dollars to a problem that no-one is actually willing to fix, & on top of that we take under a UN refugee status tag a regular number of refugees that the vast majority of which become a burden on our social security (tax payer funded) system.

 

When I see large communities of Australian Aboriginals suffering & neglected in our own country, on our own soil, & then have a refugee status immigrant drive into my place of work in a brand spanking new vehicle supplied to them by our government that I can't even afford as a tax paying, working citizen of this country all my life, you bet your @#$& I have a problem with that.

 

We are a relatively small developing nation with limited surplus tax produced monetary funds to be offering large sums of aid (yes aid in all forms costs a shit load of money!!) to foreign countries at a whim that our government (regardless of party) seems to throw at any Tom, Dick, or Harry nation that puts their hand up for help!

 

If that means building access ramps and paying a little more to keep the water down-stream clean then so be it.

Every ideal comes at a cost. Progress comes at a cost. That cost needs to be what the population can afford collectively. Idealism is one thing. Paying for it is another' date=' that is often blindly ignored by idealists. [img']wink[/img]

 

And Anthony - I think the jury is actually in on the whole adoption thing.

That depends on what jury you sit. I feel the jury you sit on is one of the (vocal) minority' date=' not the vast (silent) majority.

I don't have any articles at hand, but what I've read is that the most important thing is to have a loving environment than a strict nuclear family. Kids with loving parents perform well, no matter the combination.

My comments around same sex couples & families is in no way suggesting those couples as being non-loving or inconsiderate, or non-caring (you get the picture) or anything otherwise in that regard.

 

In my travels I have been involved with social groups that encompass same sex partnerships of both sexual persuasions, & have found them to be equally caring to any equivalent heterosexual couples I know. I have a female cousin that is gay, so am aware of more than just superficial stereotyping etc.

 

You certainly pinned me into a corner with this one Ruddy. If I'm being totally honest, I feel children who are raised in a same sex parent environment are being raised with an imbalance. In basic form, men & women are fundamentally different on many levels. Without one of each sex involved in the child's upbringing, the child then matures to become imbalanced as a result (IMHO). In what way, & to what extreme would obviously differ from one couple to another.

 

Cheers,

 

Lusty.

[MPH]

 

You certainly pinned me into a corner with this one Ruddy. If I'm being totally honest' date=' I feel children who are raised in a same sex parent environment are being raised with an imbalance. In basic form, men & women are fundamentally different on many levels. Without one of each sex involved in the child's upbringing, the child then matures to become imbalanced as a result (IMHO). In what way, & to what extreme would obviously differ from one couple to another.

 

Cheers,

 

Lusty.[/size']

 

I'd be interested to know your opinion on children who are bought up by single parents, be that male or female? Do they turn out imbalanced as a result? What does "imbalanced" even mean? That a girl raised only by a man will likely turn out to be a beer swilling, duck hunting, ute driving tradie? Why would that matter?

 

I think that as long as a child's basic needs are met, which is to be loved, cared for and to know they're important the rest will take care of itself regardless of their parental situation

 

Getting deep this one lol

[Beerlust]

Hi MPH.

You certainly pinned me into a corner with this one Ruddy. If I'm being totally honest' date=' I feel children who are raised in a same sex parent environment are being raised with an imbalance. In basic form, men & women are fundamentally different on many levels. Without one of each sex involved in the child's upbringing, the child then matures to become imbalanced as a result (IMHO). In what way, & to what extreme would obviously differ from one couple to another.

[/size']

I'd be interested to know your opinion on children who are bought up by single parents, be that male or female? Do they turn out imbalanced as a result?

You bet your arse they do!

 

I currently work in a constituent that houses 3rd, 4th & beyond generations of single mother raised & detached parentage raised children of all ages. The bulk of which have been raised under the hood of the DOLE & pension adjusted non-working class systems.

 

What does "imbalanced" even mean?

If you live in Adelaide' date=' go for a walk along the streets of Unley, Norwood & Magill etc. Then drive out to suburbs such as Salisbury, Elizabeth & Smithfield for a walk along the streets. You won't just see what it "means", you'll see firsthand what it "is"!

 

 

That a girl raised only by a man will likely turn out to be a beer swilling, duck hunting, ute driving tradie? Why would that matter?

Maybe in redneck Southern America?

 

I think that as long as a child's basic needs are met' date=' which is to be loved, cared for and to know they're important the rest will take care of itself regardless of their parental situation[img']lol[/img]

That is a very naive point of view, & ignores many hurdles that a same sex parented child WILL face growing up in what I will go to the trouble of enlightening many of in this area of the discussion, is a largely heterosexual accepting way of life portion of society.

 

Lusty.

[ChristinaS1]

My comments around same sex couples & families is in no way suggesting those couples as being non-loving or inconsiderate' date=' or non-caring (you get the picture) or anything otherwise in that regard.

 

In my travels I have been involved with social groups that encompass same sex partnerships of both sexual persuasions, & have found them to be equally caring to any equivalent heterosexual couples I know. I have a female cousin that is gay, so am aware of more than just superficial stereotyping etc.[/quote']

 

Hi Lusty. You have a female cousin that is gay? You mean lesbian, don't you? LOL! I am guessing from this slip that you don't actually spend a lot of time with her....

 

Where a couple of same sex adults consent to being in a relationship &/or being married' date=' I have no issue with this. When that same couple wish to adopt or surrogate a child unnaturally I have a BIG problem as the child's best wishes & interests are never considered, nor the impact of being raised by same sex parents will have on the child as it matures.

 

By entering into a same sex relationship you have voluntarily (by natural conditions of procreation) placed yourself in a position where this is no longer an option, & you should understand & be bound by that decision you made freely under no duress.

 

Cheers,

 

Lusty.[/size']

 

So you think same-sex couples should accept the limits of their biology and not adopt? But what about straight couples with fertility issues, is it okay for them to adopt? I am also curious about your opinion on same-sex or straight couples using reproductive technology to have children, as this also works around the limits of their biology? Do you have different rules for homosexual couples than you do for straight couples?

 

I know you to be a kind man Lusty. Please think about what a distinction would mean.

 

That leaves your argument about balance. I think what you mean is that the child has both male and female role models in its life, but considering that the sexes each make up about 50% of the population, that is not a valid concern. MPH has already made an excellent point about single-parent families, and that the most important thing is a loving home. What you didn't say, but I think you are concerned about, is that kids with same-sex parents are more likely to grow up to be homosexual themselves, but I think the rate turns out to be the same as for the general population.

 

Case in point: we are a lesbian couple with an 11 year old son. He is my wife's biological child, who we had with the help of a sperm donor and a fertility clinic. From close observation I can tell he is an emotionally healthy, well balanced kid, with a highly developed radar for sexism, and hetero-sexism; in other words, he is aware beyond his years. Through is grandfather and his uncle, two very different (straight) men, and his male teachers at school, and the imagines he sees on TV, most of which are men, he has plenty of male role models....Not that it matters, and while it is difficult to tell for sure at his age, it seems to us, and he says himself, that he thinks he is straight.

 

Cheers,

 

Christina.

 

PS I would just like to add that since our son's life is probably made easier by the fact that we live in Canada, where attitudes towards same-sex marriage have become generally supportive since it was legalized. He has actually run into surprisingly few problems because he has two mothers. I think in countries where same sex marriage is not legal, the kids of same-sex parents have a harder time. So, if you want to make life easier for such kids Lusty, you should become a supporter for same-sex marriage.

 

 

[ChristinaS1]

I currently work in a constituent that houses 3rd' date=' 4th & beyond generations of single mother raised & detached parentage raised children of all ages. The bulk of which have been raised under the hood of the DOLE & pension adjusted non-working class systems.

 

What does "imbalanced" even mean?

If you live in Adelaide, go for a walk along the streets of Unley, Norwood & Magill etc. Then drive out to suburbs such as Salisbury, Elizabeth & Smithfield for a walk along the streets. You won't just see what it "means", you'll see firsthand what it "is"!

 

The problems you see in those parts of town Lusty are not because the kids where raised by single mothers, but because they were raised by poor women. Biology and society are such that it is most often women who are single parents, and women who are poor.

 

If men could get pregnant, there was universal child care, and free university, things would be different.

[ChristinaS1]

Update from Coopers: In a third statement' date=' Coopers apologised again, announced that the commemorative cans are cancelled and that they're joining Australian Marriage Equality.

 

Wow, well that is good news. Bravo Coopers!

 

I watched the video. It would have had more impact if they had memorized their lines, so it would appear they were speaking from the heart; it was obvious they were reading their lines. Oh well, at least they have done the right thing.

 

Can't wait for them to be seen publicly handing Australian Marriage Equality a big cheque.

 

Maybe they can fly a rainbow flag on Pride Day and put a float in the various Pride Parades around the country. You folks have a Pride Parades, don't you?

 

Cheers,

 

Christina.

[jeremy-o]

Maybe they can fly a rainbow flag on Pride Day and put a float in the various Pride Parades around the country. You folks have a Pride Parades' date=' don't you?[/quote']

 

Sure do

[Otto Von Blotto]

Australia for the most part appears to be a very backwards place for progressive ideas like these, Christina. The rest of the world often moves faster in regard to them while the idiot politicians here keep throwing it around like a football for years until finally someone decides that maybe we should catch up. That's why Canada has already had same sex marriage legal for some time now, and over here we're making stupid videos on a debate that isn't even really a debate. The only opposition to it is coming from religious groups and as far as I'm concerned they can go fornicate themselves with a piece of barbed wire. They have no business influencing laws that apply to a hell of a lot of people who don't follow their faith.

 

It's also the reason why e-cigs with nicotine are legal in a lot of other places and even being recommended as a viable quitting option, while over here they've got their heads up their arses in regards to the evidence that is continuing to become available to support them being a hell of a lot safer than real cigarettes, and refuse to legalise it or support it. Too much tax $$$$$ from the sale of real ones, why would they want anyone to quit?

 

As for the parents thing, it's the same thing here as in Adelaide and it's usually because the parent(s) are poor, or the kids end up mixing with the wrong crowd, not because they're single or even a homosexual couple. Why should people not be able to have a child just because of their sexual persuasion? On one hand, we are animals, and it's not likely that homo couples in other species raise young, but on the other hand, it's denying a human right due to sexual persuasion, which in reality is discrimination. You could just as easily have an 'imbalanced' child raised by a hetero couple. Highly unlikely but an atheist father and a devout religious mother (or vice versa) could be a situation that might cause potential issues, so do we also suggest that only couples who share the same beliefs can have children?