Jump to content
Coopers Community

I didn't realise Coopers supported the Australian Bible Society


King Ruddager

Recommended Posts

On one hand' date=' we are animals, and it's not likely that homo couples in other species raise young[/quote']

 

A few scientists have put together theories combing the idea of "kin selection" (helping your genes passed on through nieces and nephew) and the "helper in the nest" phenomenon (the observed phenomenon of asexual or homosexual animals from many diverse species sticking around with family as additional caretakers), with a view to better understanding the evolutionary psychology of homosexuality...

 

Frankly though, an "appeal to nature" is a logical fallacy - nature itself gives us no moral imperative, nor should it. Or we'd be back at eugenics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 197
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Yup, it happens in nature. This kid's book is based on a true story about a pair of homosexual penguins who wanted a family and raise a baby penguin in a zoo. We used to read it to our son:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Tango-Makes-Three-Justin-Richardson/dp/148144994X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1489524085&sr=8-1&keywords=Tango+%2Bchildrens+books

 

Cheers,

 

Christina.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You bet your arse they do!

 

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.[/size']

Ok, so you agree these kids are imbalanced up as a result of the socio-economic status of their upbringing like Christina has pointed out above, not purely because they've been raised by single parentswink

 

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' date=' & 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.[/size']

given that's the case Australia should never bother changing, just stay stagnant and continue to discriminate people from different backgrounds unlike Canada, New Zealand, US, many European and South American countries because clearly it's been terrible for themwink
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly though' date=' an "appeal to nature" is a logical fallacy - nature itself gives us no moral imperative, nor should it. Or we'd be back at eugenics.[/quote']I don't disagree with that even though we are a part of nature as much as any other animal is, I was simply pointing out that it is the other side of the argument. I don't think it's a logical one however, given that we have evolved to the point of civilsed society with laws, rights etc.

 

I don't think homosexual couples should be denied the same rights that heterosexual couples have. The only reason they are currently is because of religious lobby groups. Everyone cracks up about being overtaken by Sharia Law, but they seem less worried about same sex couples being denied the right to be married. To me there is no difference, both are religious ideologies that do not have any right to be influencing legislation that affects people of all walks, especially when they are supportive of flat out discrimination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's getting a little silly when Coopers can't win no matter what they do.

 

FWIW, I think Coopers were blind sided to a certain extent by the participants in the "debate" using Coopers Light as a prop. Coopers says they didn't authorise this and I tend to believe them. I think the Bible Society got just a bit too cute with where they took this association with the brand, but that's just my guess.

 

To that extent, it's probably a storm in a teacup as far as Coopers involvement goes.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well done Coopers! The CM is great,light hearted and very Australian. Those who critisize it are un-Australian and completely fail the pub test. As a Coopers fan, I hope you don't backdown and tell those pubs who stopped selling Coopers where to stick it. Clearly they are not the sort of pubs that should be selling your product. More to the point if you bow down to this minority crowd you are more likely to lose your core clients. Also don't always believe in what is on Facebook and Twitter as these mediums are mainly trolled by media types wanting to make a n name for themselves or are full of twits. Keep up the good brewing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Christina. smile

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

She's actually my one of my favourite cousins. smile The similarities we share are ridiculous really. We are very similar in the way we think & our mannerisms. Both our families agree we are male & female versions of the one person! lol

 

So you think same-sex couples should accept the limits of their biology and not adopt? But what about straight couples with fertility issues' date=' 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?[/quote']

Provided the straight couple as you put it are using an egg from the female, & sperm from the male to conceive in the process, I have no issues with it. That cannot be said with gay couples wishing to have children. Biologically it simply isn't possible between the two of them.

 

Once you put a price tag on a child's life, you are setting a very dangerous precedent. This is already happening, & I find it all very disturbing. crying

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

I'll stand by my original point on that one, as the statistics say otherwise.

What you didn't say' date=' 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.[/quote']

This is why I'm a good guy, no, not at all. biggrin The eventual sexual preference of the child once it matures, is irrelevant.

Case in point: we are a lesbian couple with an 11 year old son. He is my wife's biological child' date=' 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,.."[/quote']

So if I was to mirror your views here & suggest that a male couple were in the same situation as the one you've described, & the female role models were exactly from the same sources, you would find that appropriate to the child? unsure

 

Nothing can replace the love, caring & influence of the biological parents. Period.

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' date=' 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. [img']wink[/img]

As I've mentioned earlier, I'm not against same sex marriage at all. However, placing a price tag on a child's head is a dangerous precedent, & the want of same sex couples to start a family on the back of this premise is only going to lead to a multitude of very serious problems over a wide variety of areas.

 

I'm sorry, but my view is this should not be endorsed by any medical practitioner or government.

 

Cheers,

 

Lusty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Christina. smile

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

She's actually my one of my favourite cousins. smile The similarities we share are ridiculous really. We are very similar in the way we think & our mannerisms. Both our families agree we are male & female versions of the one person! lol

 

So you think same-sex couples should accept the limits of their biology and not adopt? But what about straight couples with fertility issues' date=' 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?[/quote']

Provided the straight couple as you put it are using an egg from the female, & sperm from the male to conceive in the process, I have no issues with it. That cannot be said with gay couples wishing to have children. Biologically it simply isn't possible between the two of them.

 

Once you put a price tag on a child's life, you are setting a very dangerous precedent. This is already happening, & I find it all very disturbing. crying

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

I'll stand by my original point on that one, as the statistics say otherwise.

What you didn't say' date=' 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.[/quote']

This is why I'm a good guy, no, not at all. biggrin The eventual sexual preference of the child once it matures, is irrelevant.

Case in point: we are a lesbian couple with an 11 year old son. He is my wife's biological child' date=' 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,.."[/quote']

So if I was to mirror your views here & suggest that a male couple were in the same situation as the one you've described, & the female role models were exactly from the same sources, you would find that appropriate to the child? unsure

 

Nothing can replace the love, caring & influence of the biological parents. Period.

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' date=' 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. [img']wink[/img]

As I've mentioned earlier, I'm not against same sex marriage at all. However, placing a price tag on a child's head is a dangerous precedent, & the want of same sex couples to start a family on the back of this premise is only going to lead to a multitude of very serious problems over a wide variety of areas.

 

I'm sorry, but my view is this should not be endorsed by any medical practitioner or government.

 

Cheers,

 

Lusty.

 

First of all an apology to readers of this thread, for getting off the topic the topic of Coopers marketing blunder in regards to same-sex marriage. Now back to the discussion of same-sex families.

 

Hi Lusty, smile

 

So you are saying that I don't love my son as much as any father would (I am sort of like his father, because I did not carry him) even though I was there from day one? Or that adoptive parents and step-parents cannot love their kids to the same degree as biological parents? I think you are making a lot of assumptions my friend, and I most definitely disagree. In addition, while it is often true that biological parents love their children intensely, it is not always the case, not by a long shot. Children are neglected, abused, or abandoned by their biological parents on a regular basis.

 

Yes, it is true, we spent a lot of money to get our son, but I am not sure what problem you think that creates for him. Can you explain? If anything I think it proves that we really wanted him, not like some women/straight couples who get pregnant unintentionally.

 

You say reproductive technology is okay for straight couples as long as they use the sperm and eggs of the couple itself. Okay, but that still puts a "price" on the child's head as certain parts of the process aren't covered (at least in Canada), even if you don't pay for genes.

 

I'd also like to point out that adoption costs a lot of money. Not sure about Australia, but in Canada a domestic adoption costs around $20,000, while an International adoption costs around $50,000. To be consistent Lusty, you'd have to be against adoption too, even when undertaken by straight couples.

 

Speaking of price tags, you could say every child has a price on its head by the time it grows up. Just like with puppies, some of which you can get for free and some of which cost $1,000; the purchase price only represents a fraction of what it costs to have one....Excluding the cost of university, it takes around $250,000 to raise a child. wink

 

Yup, one way or another, kids cost money. If we had succeeded in our attempts to have a second child I would not be retired now, I'd still be working! lol

 

Cheers,

 

Christina.

 

PS You are right that females are under-represented in the media, and both sexes are represented in stereotypical ways, but that is a problem for little girls (and boys) born into straight families as well.

 

http://womenintvfilm.sdsu.edu/research/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plenty of straight couples have kids and then go ahead and completely neglect them, or treat them like they're a pest, or don't even know where they are half the time, while a gay couple does the complete opposite. I don't think you have to be a rocket surgeon to work out which child is going to turn out better. I think the argument is invalid. A child born into a same sex relationship won't know any different anyway, it's not like they grew up in a conventional family situation until 9 or 10 years old and then were suddenly thrown into something different.

 

As has been mentioned already, it has been legal for same sex couples to adopt children for quite some time in this country, so where are all the young adults with problems that could be attributed to being brought up in such a situation? It would be interesting to see some data on that.

 

Now, admittedly it is an abnormal situation, that's not a judgement, just a fact, but if it works and the child turns out fine then I really don't see what the problem is either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My partner works at a western Adelaide state primary school, and she has had years to observe the parenting skills affecting the kids attending the place. Clearly there is some socio-economic disadvantage, but the key determinant seems to be the values held, and conveyed, by the parents.

Until moving to the west, I lived in the "leafy" eastern suburbs, and my neighbours generally sent their kids to private schools (I sent mine to Saint Ignatius). It never ceased to amaze me how a lot of parents lavished money on sending their sprogs to the "right" school, but then seemingly were too busy to read to them, etc. - one set of neighbours used to go away most weekends and leave the kids (early/mid teens) to fend for themselves.

We know 2 lesbian couples who have had kids, and they seem to be doing a pretty good job.

Conclusions? Family configurations are incredibly varied, but it looks like family love and attention are most important, wealth is at best a secondary factor. You're really lucky to find mutual love, and who that other person is, is no business of anyone else, let alone church or state.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi again Christina.

 

As Christina said, my apologies also to the O.P. for this tangent of conversation I've been discussing here in this thread.

Yes' date=' it is true, we spent a lot of money to get our son, but I am not sure what problem you think that creates for him. Can you explain? If anything I think it proves that we really wanted him, not like some women/straight couples who get pregnant unintentionally.

 

You say reproductive technology is okay for straight couples as long as they use the sperm and eggs of the couple itself. Okay, but that still puts a "price" on the child's head as certain parts of the process aren't covered (at least in Canada), even if you don't pay for genes.

 

I'd also like to point out that adoption costs a lot of money. Not sure about Australia, but in Canada a domestic adoption costs around $20,000, while an International adoption costs around $50,000. To be consistent Lusty, you'd have to be against adoption too, even when undertaken by straight couples.[/quote']

This is the exact area I'm most concerned with & have already touched on, so I'm glad you've raised it.

 

Everything is fine & dandy once the stork drops off the adorable little tike on the doorstep, but what is going on behind the scenes to make this happen in situations where couples are unable to conceive a child themselves? What processes are involved? What circumstances are these children born into? & in some situations you might even question why were they born?

 

As I stated previously, when you put a price tag on something, you turn it into a commodity. Something that then becomes part of a supply & demand industry. Human babies should not be part of a profit making supply & demand industry, where they are no longer conceived, they are bred. Period.

 

Simple Google search: adoption agency caught

 

And although a little far fetched (or is it? unsure) a look into a possible baby making industry future the way things are heading...

 

I accept others have differing views than my own on this subject, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I only spoke of this issue as I feel very strongly about it, but have said enough now from my end, so I will speak no more of it on this forum.

 

Back to brewing. wink

 

Cheers,

 

Lusty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything is fine & dandy once the stork drops off the adorable little tike on the doorstep' date=' but what is going on behind the scenes to make this happen in situations where couples are unable to conceive a child themselves? What processes are involved? What circumstances are these children born into? & in some situations you might even question why were they born?

 

As I stated previously, when you put a price tag on something, you turn it into a commodity. Something that then becomes part of a supply & demand industry. Human babies should not be part of a profit making supply & demand industry, where they are no longer conceived, they are bred. Period.[/quote']

 

Yesterday, my partner gave birth to Beatrix:

 

0a8qNNv.jpg

 

Both Beatrix and her brother Rex were conceived by IVF. There are absolutely concerns I have about the industry as it stands today: it is a for-profit business, and it does, at times, exploit vulnerable families - especially women - as a means to that profit. It's also especially tragic when the grief of failure is compounded with the very real physical, emotional and financial hardships that lengthy cycles entail. There is a lot of space for increased education and, especially, tighter regulation.

 

But what you've just said is that my daughter should not exist. That's what you're saying. "Period."

 

I know you've mentioned that reproduction technologies when the "man and the woman" contribute are "okay," but only arbitrarily, by the logic you've followed it with.

 

I'm a good dad. I've wanted to be a dad since I was a teenager, I think. I've worked hard to establish a professional career so that we'd have a lot of options when our first child came along. The reason we couldn't conceive "naturally" amounts to an accident. There's no actual reason I can't be a father, no more than there's a reason another guy in my situation who happened to have a husband rather than a wife should not be a father. There's no actual reason that we should deny certain people a life-defining, magical experience, on increasingly strained grounds - grounds which more and more amount to fallacy and prejudice.

 

If you're really so concerned about the kids of this world, vote for a better welfare system and more investment in schools, especially early childhood education. Spare your concern for the "unnatural" kids like my daughter, who, I get the feeling, is gonna turn out ok.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My parents were among the first in Australia to trial IVF, now, none of us is sure whether I was conceived via IVF or for some reason after 15 years of trying it just decided to happen naturally, but what difference does it make? The reasons for having me were no different, and I've grown up in a healthy and loving home.

 

The method makes no difference, it's the parents and how they treat and bring up the child, and the environment that it is brought up in that make the difference as to how it turns out.

 

Obviously nobody wants to see "baby farms" or whatever, but no government is going to allow babies to just be pumped out like eggs on a chicken farm when nobody wants them. Perhaps there should be a means test or something before a couple of any persuasion is allowed to become parents, it might stop all these deadbeat morons from popping out kids and then effectively letting them fend for themselves while they go off and drink and gamble at the local pub for 8 hours a day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes indeed Jeremy, congratulations! She is beautiful! happy

 

@ Kelsey: interesting that you are (probably) the product of IVF. My parents were sub-fertile for some reason: only two kids seven years apart, with no form of birth control. I probably would not have been conceived either without reproductive technology, although it was long before the days of IVF.

 

Lusty, I know you've bowed out of this conversation, and maybe it is time for it to end anyway. I just wanted to say that I agree that international adoption is fraught with risk for baby trafficing, which is one reason I think IVF is a better option. As Jeremy pointed out, the reproductive technology sector is a for-profit industry, and that is a bad thing. That should change.

 

But the Matrix Baby Battery Lusty? w00t I think you are going to far there. lol

 

Don't base your values and opinions on Sci-Fi movies Lusty. wink

 

Cheers,

 

Christina.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the kind words' date=' all [img']love[/img] But the real question in all this remains... Can I get away with a brew tomorrow?

 

Congrats Jeremy & Family.

 

And the answer is YES - you can get away with putting a brew on. I speak from experience. When my son was born 2 years ago I came home with my daughter between hospital visiting hours and put on a Kit + Bits brew wink

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the kind words' date=' all [img']love[/img] But the real question in all this remains... Can I get away with a brew tomorrow?

 

jeremy, the answer is YES! The second question is "will you still be married at the end of it?" biggrin

 

congrats mate. i started brewing when my daughter was 5 months old. I made time for it! Generally late at night after she (and her older brother) were in bed asleep and all was still.

 

I have interrupted a brew though to pat her back to sleep - then resumed once all was still again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...