# Coopers bogged down in bible backlash?



## earle (13/3/17)

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/brewery-bogged-down-in-bible-backlash/8347732


----------



## mtb (13/3/17)

I thought it was a given that you never mix religion with alcohol..


----------



## n87 (13/3/17)

mtb said:


> I thought it was a given that you never mix religion with alcohol..


That would be why they all ban it


----------



## Danscraftbeer (13/3/17)

yawn......


----------



## warra48 (13/3/17)

n87 said:


> That would be why they all ban it


I don't know about that.
I regularly go to church every Sunday.
I brew.
I drink beer and other alcohol when I feel like it.

What's unusual about that? I'm not the only brewer in my church!


----------



## RdeVjun (13/3/17)

Wait till the fundies discover their malt is halal.


----------



## Dave70 (13/3/17)

Well. That was cringy as ****.


----------



## timmi9191 (13/3/17)

The whole issue is like WGAF..

So their marketing department potentially made a boo boo

It's like Guinness was brewed by the micks so it's boycotted by the prototents.. Yeah right!!

Beer is beer it's universal. 

More beer = less wars. 

If there is any more evidence of that watch iron maiden at whacken 2016. Ie a Brit singing the trooper in Germany waving the Union Jack advocating lets drink beer and be merry!!

Btw iron maiden and beer rock


----------



## manticle (13/3/17)

Adelaide - city of churches.




Stout that is as black as my soul.


----------



## Bribie G (14/3/17)

The whole point of the debate, as set out in the Media comments sections, is that Coopers are perfectly entitled, as a family company, to support whoever they damned well like.
That's why they are a major donor to the LNP and clearly don't support Gay marriage.

The participants in the video are perfectly entitled to exercise their rights to free speech, as well as organising their lives around mythical Unicorns, Sky Fairies and the Fairy Godfather who so loved the World that he gave his only begotten son Frodo to be killed by the heathen so that ye who verily believe upon his hairy feet shall have your own heathen infidel sins removed ...blah blah blah.

That's fine, been going on for a few thousand years and still hanging around like a bad smell.

And as consumers we are perfectly entitled to also exercise our rights to act within the law, uphold free speech and if we feel inclined to do so, to tell Coopers to **** off.
(ed: not literally, just don't buy their products - they'll get the message and as typical Christians they'll soon get the message when they seen their beloved Mammon-ometer going down off the dial. )


----------



## phonos (14/3/17)

The thing that's funny about the response is the whole point of the video is we can disagree about important issues and still have a beer together. Clearly that is a message we need to crush


----------



## MHB (14/3/17)

Some fucker will always whinge, I think its the only way they can get noticed - certainly not because what they have to say has any value or meaning and it isn't memorable.

Coopers donate to a charity that gives away bibles, that charity makes a vid, with coopers beer in it, some people who believe in the bible blame coopers because they don't like the topic in the vid... go figure.
Mark


----------



## Adr_0 (14/3/17)

Phonos said:


> The thing that's funny about the response is the whole point of the video is we can disagree about important issues and still have a beer together. Clearly that is a message we need to crush


This is true - basically everyone lighten up and have a beer. Fair enough. 

Unfortunately the prosecutors of the debate and financiers of the ad are slightly - understatement of the century - misplaced and misguided. Essentially it's the wrong debate being debated by the wrong people.


----------



## bradsbrew (14/3/17)

I am just waiting Stu's comments and how the discussion of this with his local Coopers rep at the local pub goes.


----------



## Bribie G (14/3/17)

I think the only way that Coopers is going to get any commercial advantage out of this is to harken to their Canadian brethren B)





Ed: that's OK, Stu can keep a tab on his Coopers intake and donate to the local ALP branch once a month to balance things up.


----------



## madpierre06 (14/3/17)

I'm waiting for the penny to drop as to how the vast majority of the venom that is spewed is TOWARDS those who are being accused of being closed minded and bigoted.


----------



## wynnum1 (14/3/17)

The problem with the bible they keep changing the word to make it more acceptable needs a rewrite by Quentin _Tarantino_


----------



## peteru (14/3/17)

RDWHAHB


----------



## earle (14/3/17)

wynnum1 said:


> The problem with the bible they keep changing the word to make it more acceptable needs a rewrite by Quentin _Tarantino_


I hear they had some "gourmet shit" at the last supper. h34r:


----------



## Parks (14/3/17)

earle said:


> I hear they had some "gourmet shit" at the last supper. h34r:


Matthew, you better not have eaten all my ******* avo
- Jesus.


----------



## Danscraftbeer (14/3/17)

madpierre06 said:


> I'm waiting for the penny to drop as to how the vast majority of the venom that is spewed is TOWARDS those who are being accused of being closed minded and bigoted.


Yeah its funny that. Actually its not funny at all.
"Lets call them ugly! and every other derogative name we can and act ugly ourselves with lynch mobbing, witch hunting, internet public forum gang bashings"
The new age bullies armed with bashing sticks labelled as political correctness exercising prejudice. 

Ah the hypocrisy's of people.


----------



## Bribie G (14/3/17)




----------



## Adr_0 (14/3/17)

madpierre06 said:


> I'm waiting for the penny to drop as to how the vast majority of the venom that is spewed is TOWARDS those who are being accused of being closed minded and bigoted.


Yeah that's a good point. People are pretty passionate, and probably need to temper the vitriole somewhat. The catch is, we're talking about rights and liberties being taken away. This is not simply a debate of meat vs vegetarian vs paleo diet - it's debating why fundamental civil rights should be extended to good, hard-working people or should not. Why is that even a debate?


----------



## GalBrew (14/3/17)

MHB said:


> Some fucker will always whinge, I think its the only way they can get noticed - certainly not because what they have to say has any value or meaning and it isn't memorable.
> 
> Coopers donate to a charity that gives away bibles, that charity makes a vid, with coopers beer in it, some people who believe in the bible blame coopers because they don't like the topic in the vid... go figure.
> Mark


That's the joy of being a reasonably big corporate entity (family owned or not). Probably not a great idea to piss off a whole bunch of your market with religious pig shit. Also a good lesson for Coopers as to who exactly makes up their market. Not just the rusted on oldies in SA who couldn't care less about such issues. They are too big to get involved in this sort of stuff now. Just concentrate on making beer and perhaps if you want to donate to bible thumpers and oppress certain minorities under the flimsy pretext of having a beer do it as an individual rather than drag the whole company through it. 

Or do whatever you like (as you are entitled to) and watch sales plummet.


----------



## mongey (14/3/17)

I believe coopers and anyone , are allowed to support any cause they wish. if they want to wear those affiliations on their sleeve then that's their call , 

if their beliefs alienate some of their core market then they need to cop that , there is no point trying to down play it today . 



I'm a 42 old ,married, straight , atheist with 1 kid . I support same sex marriage . Does this change what beer and home brew products I would buy ?

you know , it kinda does.


----------



## wynnum1 (14/3/17)

Coopers need to get _Christopher Pyne to act as there Savior _hes the fixer.


----------



## pat_00 (14/3/17)

Yeah, I won't be buying coopers anymore.

It was their move to publicly air their political views and they will have to wear the consequences of that.

Contrary to what some people have said, I haven't seen any hate being thrown at the Bible Society or Coopers, just people saying they will no longer buy or stock Coopers beer.


----------



## pcmfisher (14/3/17)

Donations to the Liberal party is one thing. Good or bad it is common knowledge.
But donations to the Bible Society, WTF? How much effort have they put into keeping this under wraps over the years? And why the secret? I wonder?

I bet there will be lots of prayers at the next Coopers board meeting. 

Bad move Dr Tim.


----------



## Bribie G (14/3/17)

That's one reason I don't eat Weetbix, the company is entirely owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church.

The other reason is that I wouldn't feed breakfast cereals to a pig (exception, oat bran porridge with sultanas, dates and drizzled with cream).


----------



## Parks (14/3/17)

Bribie G said:


> That's one reason I don't eat Weetbix, the company is entirely owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church.


At least they don't seem stupid enough to print Bible versus on the box.


----------



## bradsbrew (14/3/17)

pcmfisher said:


> Donations to the Liberal party is one thing. Good or bad it is common knowledge.
> But donations to the Bible Society, WTF? How much effort have they put into keeping this under wraps over the years? And why the secret? I wonder?
> 
> I bet there will be lots of prayers at the next Coopers board meeting.
> ...


I can get that people are upset over the content of the video, but I fail to see the difference between donating to a christian society and the halal and kosher certification, which from what I can gather, they would pay an annual fee to have.

Don't blame Coopers because our government can't make a moral decision about someones right to marry whoever they want, at least they are allowing both view points to be heard.

I will still drink their beers, well not that shite light stuff. Who am I to judge someone for their beliefs.


----------



## tugger (14/3/17)

I spoke with a brand owner today who has ordered extra kegs to cover venues pulling coopers from their tap list.


----------



## bradsbrew (14/3/17)

Parks said:


> At least they don't seem stupid enough to print Bible versus on the box.


It's only on this limited edition beer made for a specific client groups anniversary but isn't it.


----------



## Batz (14/3/17)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zFehQaFSjw


----------



## Parks (14/3/17)

bradsbrew said:


> It's only on this limited edition beer made for a specific client groups anniversary but isn't it.


Yes, and TBH I don't think that's even the issue at heart. 

The issue people are having is them trying to

a) make light of a topic that means _*a lot*_ to a lot of people
B) try to detach themselves from involvement when the whole thing looks like an LNP, Coopers and Bible Society commercial


----------



## yankinoz (14/3/17)

If you don't like any of your money going to the Libs, and you live in a state where coal powers electrical generation, better disconnect the appliances or go offgrid. I suspect Coopers donations pale in comparison to those of the coal companies.

Better idea: severely and effectively cap political donations and curb lobbyists. Their power is a growing international problem.

Regarding the Christian group and others like it, as an atheist I don't like feeding them even indirectly and I suspect a lot of Christians would boycott a product whose profits go to LGBT causes, but I'd go mad trying to track down where every company or owning family spends their dough. It is one's right not to buy something, but I'd hold the boycotts for worst cases. Is this one? I'd need details.

And be careful what you wish for. Coopers is the largest obstacle in the way of an SAB MIller/Lion Nathan duopoly.


----------



## yankinoz (14/3/17)

Balance:

In the way of nonchristian promotions there's always He'Brew the Chosen Beer, 
http://shmaltzbrewing.com/beer/. On the other hand Wasatch brewery in Utah markets Polygamy Porter under the slogan “Buy a sixpack for your wives.”


----------



## Brewnicorn (14/3/17)

I guess there's a lot in play here: and point - counter-point will have us at it til the cows come home. 
My personal issue, Coopers have elected to take a position, their opinion public and they did it in a awkward statement commenting directly on a controversial issue. Separation of church and state is one thing we know barely works in practice, but I hate seeing this stuff creep into politics. Their support for a religious organisation and moreover a vehicle for active opposition to what I see as a human right, is a shit thing to do. Even if as a family owned business 'they' personally hold that belief. The belief is out of step. The law is out of step. The company is out of step. Politics, as always skip-stepping the **** backwards away from good judgment. Momentum alone will see this right wronged and it's a shame to see a good company **** themselves over by making a (mis?)calculated move like this. 
Coopers can make a statement. People opposed can 'whinge'. But hate the whinge, don't hate the issue.

Edit: I know Coopers denied sponsoring the 'event' but the Bible Society stuff speaks for itself, surely.


----------



## Danscraftbeer (14/3/17)

Just heard on news radio that Coopers had nothing to do with the video. It wasn't their call. I cant believe this makes news!
As for their choices? I'll chose not to believe any religious doctrine but I'll be stuffed if I'll carry prejudice for those who do. 
I will boycott going to church though ha..
For the _people's _backlash to boycott Coopers for such a thing is just another perfect example of prejudice...duh...
It never ceases to amaze me. Point out prejudice, and exercise prejudice. Double standards galore. People are lost. Were is the evolution?


----------



## drsmurto (14/3/17)

Danscraftbeer said:


> Just heard on news radio that Coopers had nothing to do with the video. It wasn't their call. I cant believe this makes news!
> As for their choices? I'll chose not to believe any religious doctrine but I'll be stuffed if I'll carry prejudice for those who do.
> I will boycott going to church though ha..
> For the _people's _backlash to boycott Coopers for such a thing is just another perfect example of prejudice...duh...
> It never ceases to amaze me. Point out prejudice, and exercise prejudice. Double standards galore. People are lost. Were is the evolution?


The boycotting is not prejudice, it is choosing not to support a company whose values don't align with yours. Social media in 2017 turns this benign approach in to a circus. 

I don't donate to the Salvation Army or any other religious organisation as their values don't align with mine.


----------



## Dave70 (14/3/17)

wynnum1 said:


> The problem with the bible they keep changing the word to make it more acceptable needs a rewrite by Quentin _Tarantino_


Wont happen. Theres a distinct lack of reference to black people in the bible, robbing Tarantino of one of his most popular nouns. The book of Mormon the other hand..


'What the **** am I doin in the back, you the muthfucker should be on brain detail, we fuckin switchin, I'm washin the windows, and you pickin up this Lamanites skull'


----------



## Stouter (14/3/17)

Bribie G said:


> That's one reason I don't eat Weetbix, the company is entirely owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church.
> 
> The other reason is that I wouldn't feed breakfast cereals to a pig (exception, oat bran porridge with sultanas, dates and drizzled with cream).


Ahh no, too late this morning then, but that's breakfast tomorrow fu&#ed then.
Porridge for me, then more porridge for the day.


----------



## TimT (14/3/17)

Religion and drink don't mix? Hahaha, nobody's heard of communion wine?


----------



## TimT (14/3/17)

It's not entirely clear to what extent Coopers had involvement in this. The publicity they've had certainly hasn't been all good (nobody wants to cause boycotts to your brand, even unintentionally). But they'll survive. 

The CUB dispute with the unions was much worse: that went on for months, and more and more pubs signed up to the boycott. It'll stick around in memories in a way that the Coopers gaff won't. CUB pissed off the unions and workers. These remain a core demographic for a company that specialises in beer. A discussion about gay marriage, on the other hand, is neither here nor there. 

A couple of inner-city lefties might be pissed off, but then again, everything pisses them off. They have far less influence than they think they have.


----------



## EK (14/3/17)

Initially Coopers were _not _distancing themselves from it....I don't hear Coopers condemning the use of their product here:
From https://coopers.com.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/coopers-keeping-it-light.pdf


> With regards to the ‘Keeping it Light’ video from the Bible Society featuring Andrew Hastie and Tim Wilson, this is a light hearted but balanced debate about an important topic within Australia. As a mature community it's a debate we need to have but in a good spirited and good natured way. That's how we've done business for a 154 years. Coopers isn’t trying to push religious messages or change your beliefs by celebrating 200 years of charitable work undertaken by the Bible Society, in fact, over the years we have produced a number of different celebratory cans to recognise the historical achievements of a vast array of different organisations.


Only when people didn't like it did they decide to backpedal: https://coopers.com.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/commemorative-premium-light.pdf


> Coopers have released commemorative cans of Premium Light beer to celebrate The Bible Society’s 200th anniversary. In doing so, we aren’t trying to push a religious message, we see these commemorative cans as a celebration of the Bible Society’s 200 years of charitable work in Australia. We want you to know that Coopers did not give permission for our Premium Light beer to feature in, or ‘sponsor’ the Bible Society’s ‘Keeping it Light’ video featuring Andrew Hastie and Tim Wilson. We respect the beliefs of our community and do not wish to try and change them. Our family brewery is made up of individuals from a number of different backgrounds, all of whom hold differing views on politics and religion, which we think is reflective of the wider community. We would like all Coopers fans to know that we support and embrace all of our beer drinking community.



In light of all this, people will decide (as they are entitled to do) if they will purchase from Coopers any longer. Pubs and organisations also have this right...and it's good to see that they those that have done this, did so in a professional manner. Effectively saying: "No thanks." as opposed to any other method.


----------



## Dave70 (14/3/17)

If I'm honest, Ballast Point could be in cahoots with ISIS.
Would buy again.


----------



## madpierre06 (14/3/17)

Adr_0 said:


> Yeah that's a good point. People are pretty passionate, and probably need to temper the vitriole somewhat. The catch is, we're talking about rights and liberties being taken away. This is not simply a debate of meat vs vegetarian vs paleo diet - it's debating why fundamental civil rights should be extended to good, hard-working people or should not. Why is that even a debate?


Hey Adr_o. One thing I would disagree on is that while some see it as rigths and liberties, others see it as a defining value based on Scripture, a set of values they see as sacrosanct. That things like 'right to ,marry someone I love' I see as an emotive ploy thrown in to influence public opinion. And while there is a significant history of the church acting entirely contrary to the writings in Scripture, it does not mean that those writings are at fault. Marriage is a biblical principle - if those whio identify themselves on a sexual orientation basis wish to join with someone, then have a civic union. But don't expect someone who has devoted himself to following Christ as a Pastor to completely throw HIS values out the window and perform a marriage ceremony in a place of worship for someone who is going completely aginst the values of that place of worship. 

Ideally, I like to play based on the principles of Booker T....don't hate the player, hate the game. I count myself as a true follower of Christ....I have nothing against anyone based on sexual orientation or other emotive issues used to attack the church, and anyone who is also a true follower would say the same thing. My issue is with the sin itself. Not the person.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (14/3/17)

madpierre06 said:


> Marriage is a biblical principle


incorrect.


----------



## madpierre06 (14/3/17)

Liam_snorkel said:


> incorrect.


Based on.....?


----------



## TimT (14/3/17)

_My issue is with the sin itself. Not the person._

Pierre. I'd suggest it is sentences and thoughts like this that may keep many gay people away from church. And I'd further suggest, it has very little basis in scripture or tradition. 

Too often modern interpretation of Christianity focus obsessively on a narrow interpretation of a few lines from Genesis, Leviticus, or Romans. It can lead to a very Pharisaical kind of Christianity, an eagerness to cast out the mote in your brother's eye while not seeing the beam in your own.


----------



## madpierre06 (14/3/17)

TimT said:


> _My issue is with the sin itself. Not the person._
> 
> Pierre. I'd suggest it is sentences and thoughts like this that may keep many gay people away from church. And I'd further suggest, it has very little basis in scripture or tradition.
> 
> Too often modern interpretation of Christianity focus obsessively on a narrow interpretation of a few lines from Genesis, Leviticus, or Romans. It can lead to a very Pharisaical kind of Christianity, an eagerness to cast out the mote in your brother's eye while not seeing the beam in your own.


Tim, I focus entirely on no interpretation other than as made clear by the Holy Spirit, leaning as far away as possible from those Pharasaical principles you mention as possible. And you're correct, there are so many interpretations which neglect personal spiritual responsibility and inventory which leave such a nasty taste of what genuine Christianity actually should look like. As I sais, don;t hate the player, hate the game. And if looking at the speck in my own eye, there is no way I can judge the other for the log in his.


----------



## Adr_0 (14/3/17)

madpierre06 said:


> Hey Adr_o. One thing I would disagree on is that while some see it as rigths and liberties, others see it as a defining value based on Scripture, a set of values they see as sacrosanct. That things like 'right to ,marry someone I love' I see as an emotive ploy thrown in to influence public opinion. And while there is a significant history of the church acting entirely contrary to the writings in Scripture, it does not mean that those writings are at fault. Marriage is a biblical principle - if those whio identify themselves on a sexual orientation basis wish to join with someone, then have a civic union. But don't expect someone who has devoted himself to following Christ as a Pastor to completely throw HIS values out the window and perform a marriage ceremony in a place of worship for someone who is going completely aginst the values of that place of worship.
> 
> Ideally, I like to play based on the principles of Booker T....don't hate the player, hate the game. I count myself as a true follower of Christ....I have nothing against anyone based on sexual orientation or other emotive issues used to attack the church, and anyone who is also a true follower would say the same thing. My issue is with the sin itself. Not the person.


Unfortunately in the Marriage Act it is fairly explicit:
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004A01361

I think that's what gets people down a bit. So essentially, two people cannot be legally married unless they are a man and a woman. So while traditional, sure, the _values_ of marriage don't really line up with law - though they may line up with the Christian values of marriage according to some sections in the Bible.

(hence not all people have the right to get married)


----------



## Danscraftbeer (14/3/17)

So. People (or pubs) want to boycott Coopers because of this. Are they checking up on all the families of the other brews they will serve instead? Or every Australian business? or on every product you buy for that matter. To make sure they are pro gay marriage?
Just curious of the solidity of absolutists reactions etc. ("If they're not with us then they're against us" attitude)
and these new age crusaders wonder why there has been a rise of Trumps and Hansens....Its a backlash too.

To quote the saying: If you want to gather honey don't kick over bee hives.


----------



## DUANNE (14/3/17)

what gets me is the same people whinging about coopers donating to a christian group and the lnp and carrying on about gay rights fall all over themselves to donate money to the watermelon party and are deeply in love with another religion that has the death penalty for gays.they cant even see there own hypocrisy like usual.


----------



## Brewnicorn (14/3/17)

Marriage being recorded in the bible doesn't make it a biblical principle. Ask yourself the chicken and the egg question. Even if it was recorded in 'a scripture' there wasn't a bible to record it on - the bible is a collection of writings. There was never an endorsed canon or volume regarded as correct. It's a diary of occurrences. Asking for a faith based blessing you'd be on the money but referring to it as a biblical institution is a complete misrepresentation of the institution. It's man made. Not even divinely handed out, if you're inclined to take your faith that far.


----------



## TimT (14/3/17)

_And if looking at the speck in my own eye, there is no way I can judge the other for the log in his._

Hm, this is somewhat pedantic of me but I note you've reversed the normal position of the log and the speck there. But yeah. I know what you're saying. The trouble is, I think, too much general discussion of 'love the sinner, hate the sin' can lead to gays feeling rejected from church. Are we really to say to, say, a gay couple who have been in a faithful loving relationship for years that we love them but hate their sin? I can't come at that. 

Gay marriage in a church is a slightly different issue. I certainly don't think churches should be forced into doing that.


----------



## TimT (14/3/17)

_Marriage being recorded in the bible doesn't make it a biblical principle. _

It comes from Christ himself, you goose, and you can't get a much more biblical principle than one that _comes from the very founder of Christianity himself_. 

_3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?_
_4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,_
_5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?_
_6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder._

I've got no problems with the idea of gay marriage; though some people may wish to distinguish it from the type of marriage that Christ describes above - I'll leave that up to them. But arguing that marriage is not based on biblical principles? You're going on a long walk off a short pier there.


----------



## Dave70 (14/3/17)

Adr_0 said:


> Unfortunately in the Marriage Act it is fairly explicit:
> https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004A01361
> 
> I think that's what gets people down a bit. So essentially, two people cannot be legally married unless they are a man and a woman. So while traditional, sure, the _values_ of marriage don't really line up with law - though they may line up with the Christian values of marriage according to some sections in the Bible.
> ...


And the fact that you could basically scribble that amendment on the back of a beer coaster makes it all the more contemptible. Its the legislative equivalent of telling your kids 'because I say so' and absolutely reeks of religious decree.


----------



## Adr_0 (14/3/17)

Dave70 said:


> And the fact that you could basically scribble that amendment on the back of a beer coaster makes it all the more contemptible. Its the legislative equivalent of telling your kids 'because I say so' and absolutely reeks of religious decree.


Bingo.


----------



## Mattress (14/3/17)

TimT said:


> _Marriage being recorded in the bible doesn't make it a biblical principle. _
> 
> It comes from Christ himself, you goose, and you can't get a much more biblical principle than one that _comes from the very founder of Christianity himself_.
> 
> ...


This has to be a troll comment.

Surely no ones stupid enough to think that marriage didn't exist before the time of Christ.


----------



## TimT (14/3/17)

_Surely no ones stupid enough to think that marriage didn't exist before the time of Christ._

Haha. 

Christ is referencing previous discussions of marriage in the Hebrew scriptures. 

So yep. Well aware of that.


----------



## Cerveja (14/3/17)

So many people missing the point. What Coopers did, as a business decision, was really stupid. How they reacted to the backlash was also stupid. The level of reaction to this suggests it is NOT just SJWs and lefties having a whinge. Read the comments on their Facebook page and you will realise it is a lot of 'average' people that are disappointed. They have a battle ahead of them. I can see the bean counters at Asahi sharpening their pencils now. Me? I have opinions but most importantly I won't support stupid business owners.


----------



## Mattress (14/3/17)

TimT said:


> _Surely no ones stupid enough to think that marriage didn't exist before the time of Christ._
> 
> Haha.
> 
> ...


But marriage has existed in China since at least the Qin dynasty.


----------



## Stouter (14/3/17)

Uh oh, this is all getting a bit deep and heavy. Started out talking about beer, then religion, now marriage, and now China's involved?! 我肏
Sounds like a step by step to chaos.
Goes beyond my decisions about what's for breakfast, and definitely goes beyond what beer I'm going to drink.


----------



## Black Devil Dog (14/3/17)

I'm so faux offended (like everyone else), I'm going to make my feelings known where it really counts, at the cash register.



Tomorrow, I'm stocking up on Coopers Pale Ale.


----------



## earle (14/3/17)

People can believe whatever they want. The problem is when people believe in something so much that it becomes fact for them and they want their belief to be the basis of law so that everyone else can be forced to live according to their beliefs whether they agree with them or not. That's why religion and state should be separate.

Whether they admit it or not Coopers bought into this idea of foisting beliefs.

I'm a married heterosexual and I'm much more offended by shows like Married at first sight or heterosexual unions where kids are ignored to the point of neglect than I am by same sex marriage.


----------



## TimT (14/3/17)

_Uh oh, this is all getting a bit deep and heavy. Started out talking about beer, then religion, now marriage, and now China's involved?! 我肏_

I'm not leaving until we discuss the historical, sociological and ideological causes and consequences of the communist revolution under Mao!


----------



## Cerveja (14/3/17)

Is that you Dr Tim?


----------



## Stouter (14/3/17)

TimT said:


> _Uh oh, this is all getting a bit deep and heavy. Started out talking about beer, then religion, now marriage, and now China's involved?! 我肏_
> 
> I'm not leaving until we discuss the historical, sociological and ideological causes and consequences of the communist revolution under Mao!


Well that's easy, Mao was a c&%t, end of story.

Now how about that porridge?


----------



## EK (14/3/17)

I remember when this was about Cooper's backpedaling


----------



## Liam_snorkel (14/3/17)

madpierre06 said:


> Marriage is a biblical principle





Liam_snorkel said:


> incorrect.





madpierre06 said:


> Based on.....?


Historically: it has existed in documented history well before the abrahamic religions were but a fart in an Arab's robe.

Currently: marriage is enacted by Australian federal law which has no basis or reference to biblical principals, and prior to the Marriage Amendment Act of 2004, was covered by common law, and deliberately undefined.


----------



## Danscraftbeer (14/3/17)

Black Devil Dog said:


> I'm so faux offended (like everyone else), I'm going to make my feelings known where it really counts, at the cash register.
> 
> 
> 
> Tomorrow, I'm stocking up on Coopers Pale Ale.


I did! haha. Only because I did the rare thing and **** up a batch of beer its grass beer.
So got a slab of Celebrity Ale (because there are shelf products I trust) and **** both sides of this storm.. :chug:


----------



## madpierre06 (14/3/17)

Liam_snorkel said:


> Historically: it has existed in documented history well before the abrahamic religions were but a fart in an Arab's robe.
> 
> Currently: marriage is enacted by Australian federal law which has no basis or reference to biblical principals, and prior to the Marriage Amendment Act of 2004, was covered by common law, and deliberately undefined.


If you're going to accept it, or not, as related in Genesis at the beginning, then reference to man and wife predated any actual religion completely. Gen. 2:22 - 24. 



TimT said:


> _And if looking at the speck in my own eye, there is no way I can judge the other for the log in his._
> 
> Hm, this is somewhat pedantic of me but I note you've reversed the normal position of the log and the speck there. But yeah. I know what you're saying. The trouble is, I think, too much general discussion of 'love the sinner, hate the sin' can lead to gays feeling rejected from church. Are we really to say to, say, a gay couple who have been in a faithful loving relationship for years that we love them but hate their sin? I can't come at that.
> 
> Gay marriage in a church is a slightly different issue. I certainly don't think churches should be forced into doing that.


Typo...eyes here are pretty scarred. Authorised logging country.

I do see what you're saying, there has been far too much twisting and misrepresenting and specific manipulation of Scripture so as to completely misrepresent Christ's teachings. And to alienate people. I do believe that there is an underlying agenda to try and force churches into performing ceremonies between people who identify by sexual persuasion though.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (14/3/17)

madpierre06 said:


> If you're going to accept it, or not, as related in Genesis at the beginning, then reference to man and wife predated any actual religion completely. Gen. 2:22 - 24.


unfortunately, this has no basis in reality.


----------



## Parks (14/3/17)

madpierre06 said:


> I do believe that there is an underlying agenda to try and force churches into performing ceremonies between people who identify by sexual persuasion though.


I'm not sure I have once heard of anyone trying or wanting to get a homosexual wedding in a church.


----------



## madpierre06 (14/3/17)

Parks said:


> I'm not sure I have once heard of anyone trying or wanting to get a homosexual wedding in a church.


it will happen.


Liam_snorkel said:


> unfortunately, this has no basis in reality.


Based on.....


----------



## GalBrew (14/3/17)

madpierre06 said:


> If you're going to accept it, or not, as related in Genesis at the beginning, then reference to man and wife predated any actual religion completely. Gen. 2:22 - 24.


Yep, that's totally what happened.......


----------



## Cerveja (14/3/17)

Reality


----------



## TimT (14/3/17)

_I'm not sure I have once heard of anyone trying or wanting to get a homosexual wedding in a church._

As you know it's a highly politicised issue. Sooner or later there'll be a test case in Australia. It's been tested in the UK.


----------



## Brewnicorn (14/3/17)

TimT said:


> _Marriage being recorded in the bible doesn't make it a biblical principle. _
> 
> It comes from Christ himself, you goose, and you can't get a much more biblical principle than one that _comes from the very founder of Christianity himself_.
> 
> ...


I assume you're calling me a goose. That's impolite. Please don't be impolite. 

And your point/s just garbage. There's more to a point than winning it, try understanding it. Bible, scripture, testament, the founder of Christianity was John the Baptist, if you want to be technical. If you believe in both those individuals altogether. The institution and formalising it in a ceremony... reproduction existed long before Christ. 

And remember, keep it polite eh.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (14/3/17)

same sex unions, marriages, were documented in ancient Mesopotamia, predating any hebrew scripture. It's hard to know before the advent of writing in Sumeria 5000 years ago but it would be fairly safe to assume they were already happening


----------



## TimT (14/3/17)

_The institution and formalising it in a ceremony... reproduction existed long before Christ. _

Merely affectionate chiding, Brewnicorn. 

I didn't say marriage existed solely as a Biblical principal. There are other definitions, and other cultures have very similar concepts. 

But if you are seriously trying to suggest that Christ did not articulate the foundational principles of Christianity - one of them being marriage - then - well, let's just say I might be forced to use still more affectionate chiding.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (14/3/17)

That is a matter for christians, not the rest of us.


----------



## Cerveja (14/3/17)

Just in:

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

Hope the link works - I'm a virgin at this


----------



## Brewnicorn (14/3/17)

TimT said:


> _The institution and formalising it in a ceremony... reproduction existed long before Christ. _
> 
> Merely affectionate chiding, Brewnicorn.
> 
> ...


Some might thing you patronising. Philosophers have argued these points for longer than I care to give you in the spotlight. I take some of your points. The rest I think I'll file under trolling. Or Goosing, if you want to claim the copyright on that I don't mind. 

Coopers statement this evening puts a lot of this thread to bed I should think.


----------



## manticle (14/3/17)

If you're going to argue philosophy, history and creationism with reference to breweries, at least call principles: principles and principals: principals.

I can't palate the concept of a pallet as my palette.


----------



## Adr_0 (14/3/17)

manticle said:


> If you're going to argue philosophy, history and creationism with reference to breweries, at least call principles: principles and principals: principals.
> I can't palate the concept of a pallet as my palette.


There their with they're things, while where were we are.


----------



## manticle (14/3/17)

I just committed a warra and apologise.


----------



## warra48 (14/3/17)

All rather sad how people get their knickers in a knot oh so easily.

As I watched the video I didn't think that in any way it implied that Coopers was against same-sex marriage. Both sides were given a fair opportunity to put their views, it was done civilly, and in good humour. It was exactly the type of discussion that Australia has been engaged in for some time, but with a lot more heat and frank hatred than happened here. It seems that Coopers celebrating the Bible Society's 200th anniversary is the real issue. The boycotting of Coopers over their associating with a Christian organisation seems to me to be hypocritical. To be consistent, you need to track down every company which endorses or accepts any view which you disagree with, and then boycott those as well. Unfortunately, business realities have pressured Coopers into releasing a statement distancing themselves from the original video. 

The views expressed in the original video are well known and established, and are nothing new. Why should it raise such an uproar now?


----------



## mongey (15/3/17)

warra48 said:


> The views expressed in the original video are well known and established, and are nothing new. Why should it raise such an uproar now?





. social media activism is how people protest these days . and is more effective than the old school, lets go sit down at parliament house and sing songs. it hits corporations where it hurts. like it our not its here to stay. 

I'm not saying its the most positive way for the world to work , but it's a fact that it is the way it is now 

any corporation that gets on the wrong side of this issue is going to get heat . to a growing many a basic human right is being denied . and like all human right issues that number is going to swell until change is just unavoidable . there is such an uproar because change is happening


----------



## Dave70 (15/3/17)

madpierre06 said:


> If you're going to accept it, or not, as related in Genesis at the beginning, then reference to man and wife predated any actual religion completely. Gen. 2:22 - 24.



Must have been a typo, totaly understandable in a meandering chronicle / dictation. Heres the evidence from the Garden of Eden itself (circa 4000 BC). I obtained this from the same source that Mel Gibson acquired the 'eye witness' accounts (his words) from which he dramatized that uplifting masochistic thriller 'The Passion', so it must be legit.


----------



## Mattress (15/3/17)

madpierre06 said:


> If you're going to accept it, or not, as related in Genesis at the beginning, then reference to man and wife predated any actual religion completely. Gen. 2:22 - 24.


But my book of beliefs state that the beginning happened like this,

It began with the forging of the Great Rings. Three were given to the Elves, immortal, wisest and fairest of all beings. Seven to the Dwarf-Lords, great miners and craftsmen of the mountain halls. And nine, nine rings were gifted to the race of Men, who above all else desire power. For within these rings was bound the strength and the will to govern each race. But they were all of them deceived, for another ring was made. Deep in the land of Mordor, in the Fires of Mount Doom, the Dark Lord Sauron forged a master ring in secret, and into this ring he poured his cruelty, his malice and his will to dominate all life. One ring to rule them all.


Now there is just as much evidence to prove my book to be true as there is regarding your book.

If we are required to enact laws and customs based on the stories from your book, then it is only fair that my book gets a run as well.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (15/3/17)

Bit of a blunder by Coopers but I think they have learn't their lesson. Time to move on. 

Much true history occurs in the bible but you still have to sort the grain from the chaff.. . like most religious documents the books were written, selected and edited by men. Men are fallible.


----------



## Dave70 (15/3/17)

Mattress said:


> But my book of beliefs state that the beginning happened like this,
> 
> It began with the forging of the Great Rings. Three were given to the Elves, immortal, wisest and fairest of all beings. Seven to the Dwarf-Lords, great miners and craftsmen of the mountain halls. And nine, nine rings were gifted to the race of Men, who above all else desire power. For within these rings was bound the strength and the will to govern each race. But they were all of them deceived, for another ring was made. Deep in the land of Mordor, in the Fires of Mount Doom, the Dark Lord Sauron forged a master ring in secret, and into this ring he poured his cruelty, his malice and his will to dominate all life. One ring to rule them all.
> 
> ...


Blasphemy. 

The truly enlightened understand that it all began - "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away....".

I demand you recognize this fact immediately, failure to do so will leave me no choice but to declare war on you and drive you from this forum.
(or you may choose to pay me a gratuity deducted directly from your income if you wish to stay, I'm good either way)


----------



## Parks (15/3/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> like most religious documents the books were written, selected and edited by men. Men are fallible.


Not to mention the number of translations the book has gone through. Have you seen how different the versions are?

Also as far as I can ascertain, the New testament wasn't even written until at least 70 years after Christ's death. So the stories must already be a generation old by the time they've been put to paper. Now to read a book "...and then Jesus said to..." well it's a pretty big pill to swallow.

"Based on a true story" may have been a better tag line to the book.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (15/3/17)

This passage is particularly amusing .. unless your one of the boys of course. 


Elisha Is Jeered
23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.


----------



## TimT (15/3/17)

_The rest I think I'll file under trolling. Or Goosing, if you want to claim the copyright on that I don't mind. _

I was a bit argumentative last night Brewnicorn and I probably shouldn't have used the term 'goose'. (It seemed less lame and more affectionate than 'you silly'). Free to use the term 'Goose' yourself if you like. And hey, nothing wrong with them. Fine bird. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Domestic_Goose.jpg


----------



## bradsbrew (15/3/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> This passage is particularly amusing .. unless your one of the boys of course.
> 
> 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.


I first read that as "He then went on to mount camel"


----------



## good4whatAlesU (15/3/17)

.. strange days indeed.


----------



## mongey (15/3/17)

bradsbrew said:


> I first read that as "He then went on to mount camel"


well apparently that's the next thing that happens once you legalize gay marriage


----------



## earle (15/3/17)

https://coopers.com.au/whats-on/news/2017/03/14/coopers-brewery-supports-diversity-and-equality


----------



## Liam_snorkel (15/3/17)

considering the geographical region in which it was written, it was probably meant to read "mount a camel"


----------



## Adr_0 (15/3/17)

So we're slightly off topic. We're now no longer talking about Coopers, or about the 'initiative' of the Bible Society using Coopers Light to lubricate 'debate' of who should have basic rights and who shouldn't - we're now just slagging the Bible.

...

*shrugs*

Carry on, I guess...


----------



## wynnum1 (15/3/17)

Liam_snorkel said:


> considering the geographical region in which it was written, it was probably meant to read "mount a camel"





Liam_snorkel said:


> considering the geographical region in which it was written, it was probably meant to read "mount a camel"


Transfer to Australia 

Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport'


----------



## manticle (15/3/17)

Rolf 'Tie me 9 yr old down, sport' Harris


----------



## Liam_snorkel (15/3/17)

oof


----------



## Dave70 (15/3/17)

mongey said:


> well apparently that's the next thing that happens once you legalize gay marriage


You need to stop reading those Cory Bernardi pamphlets..


----------



## peteru (15/3/17)

This thread is right about on track for Godwin's Law.


----------



## madpierre06 (15/3/17)

Not unsurprising is the blatant mocking of someone and their belief system, and the support of such mocking......from those who cry foul at the first sign of disregard for anyone else's rights or beliefs. Quality work.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (15/3/17)

Nobody is questioning your right to believe in things, just don't expect them to be taken seriously in an argument about something that predates your belief system.


----------



## wobbly (15/3/17)

mongey said:


> . social media activism is how people protest these days .


The problem with that is that people are faceless (as on this site) and say anything they want without being held accountable for what they say. It's much easier to protest against something via social media under some pseudonym where there is basically no responsibility for what you/they say than to do it face to face and be held accountable 

Wobbly


----------



## earle (15/3/17)

Belief - here lies the crux of the matter. If you prefaced your statements with "I believe" we wouldn't have the responses that you take offense to. The problem is that you argue your point by quoting as fact from a book which is a fundamental part of "your" belief system and documents history in a particular way, and expect everyone else to unquestioningly accept it, even though its not a part of their belief system. In doing so you devalue everyone else's belief system that doesn't match with yours - similar to the disregard and mocking you refer to but in a less overt way.

For example, a Mormon might join the discussion and state - "Marriage should not be between a man and a woman, it should be between a man and several women. It says so in the Book of Morman, a book that was written through a prophet by the hand of God. Therefore the law should be changed to allow this" they probably wouldn't get a great reception as they are quoting the book of morman as fact rather than representative of their beliefs.

Discuss your beliefs as such but communicate them as your belief, and there will be more respect.


----------



## wynnum1 (15/3/17)

Commemorative _Coopers_ Premium Light _beer if they are withdrawing the beer what is going to happen to the unsold cans of beer _ taking to landfill would just be pure evil .


----------



## madpierre06 (15/3/17)

Liam_snorkel said:


> Nobody is questioning your right to believe in things, just don't expect them to be taken seriously in an argument about something that predates your belief system.


Not necessarily...we have both agreed previously that you and have see things very differently in a number of ways, but in no way will I disrespect or ridicule your points of view or beliefs in any discussions I may have with you. I wil,l always understand that your reasons for your beliefs are quite valid to you (the 'you' being plural as well as singular). And I'll defend to the death your right to your belief...and in any discussion on your beliefs, I will take them very seriously .



earle said:


> Belief - here lies the crux of the matter. If you prefaced your statements with "I believe" we wouldn't have the responses that you take offense to. The problem is that you argue your point by quoting as fact from a book which is a fundamental part of "your" belief system and documents history in a particular way, and expect everyone else to unquestioningly accept it, even though its not a part of their belief system. In doing so you devalue everyone else's belief system that doesn't match with yours - similar to the disregard and mocking you refer to but in a less overt way.
> 
> For example, a Mormon might join the discussion and state - "Marriage should not be between a man and a woman, it should be between a man and several women. It says so in the Book of Morman, a book that was written through a prophet by the hand of God. Therefore the law should be changed to allow this" they probably wouldn't get a great reception as they are quoting the book of morman as fact rather than representative of their beliefs.
> 
> Discuss your beliefs as such but communicate them as your belief, and there will be more respect.


Not necessarily so, Earle. When the concept of 'belief' has been discussed in the past, it confirmed for me absolutely something which I knew to be true. And I'd happily discuss the why's of that privately with anyone who had an open mind to it. When speaking to the subject which was central to this thread, I come from a value-related point of view based on certain teachings. Other people's points of view come from other values or opinions....neither of which have I ridiculed either overtly or otherwise. I know those teachings I follow to be truth....in no way am I saying though that yours or Liam's or anyone else's opinion is less than valid or worth listening to. My book does say though, that I will be ridiculed for what I believe in.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (15/3/17)

madpierre06 said:


> Not necessarily...we have both agreed previously that you and have see things very differently in a number of ways, but in no way will I disrespect or ridicule your points of view or beliefs in any discussions I may have with you. I wil,l always understand that your reasons for your beliefs are quite valid to you (the 'you' being plural as well as singular). And I'll defend to the death your right to your belief...and in any discussion on your beliefs, I will take them very seriously .


The difference here is that I don't "believe" anything, and neither does Australian common law or legislation have a basis in beliefs.


----------



## Droopy Brew (15/3/17)

wynnum1 said:


> Commemorative _Coopers_ Premium Light _beer if they are withdrawing the beer what is going to happen to the unsold cans of beer _ taking to landfill would just be pure evil .


My guess is they will dilute with a 50:50 solution of water and yettie urine and repackage it in Great Northern bottles and send them up to Queensland.


----------



## Droopy Brew (15/3/17)

madpierre06 said:


> . I know those teachings I follow to be truth....


There is a difference between knowing and having faith. I'm sure you have faith that these teachings are the truth but you don't know it as fact.

If you know it to be true I'd be more than obliged to see the evidence of that. It would be a world first.


----------



## GalBrew (15/3/17)

Preaching a literal interpretation of the bible as the 'truth' and 'fact' is probably not going to garner a whole lot of respect to be fair. But I guess in the 21st century anything can be a 'fact' if you want it to. #AlternativeFacts.


----------



## earle (15/3/17)

madpierre06 said:


> Not necessarily so, Earle. When the concept of 'belief' has been discussed in the past, it confirmed for me absolutely something which I knew to be true. And I'd happily discuss the why's of that privately with anyone who had an open mind to it. When speaking to the subject which was central to this thread, I come from a value-related point of view based on certain teachings. Other people's points of view come from other values or opinions....neither of which have I ridiculed either overtly or otherwise. I know those teachings I follow to be truth....in no way am I saying though that yours or Liam's or anyone else's opinion is less than valid or worth listening to. My book does say though, that I will be ridiculed for what I believe in.


So my point of view comes from other values or opinions - the teachings that you follow are "the truth" - but in no way are you saying my opinion is less valid?????

Why can't the values that I follow also be "the truth"?


----------



## bradsbrew (15/3/17)

Liam_snorkel said:


> Nobody is questioning your right to believe in things, just don't expect them to be taken seriously in an argument about something that predates your belief system.


Is it the _term_ marriage that predates the christian belief or the _concept_ of a lawful partnership? Meaning that, does the word marriage show up in any literature pre bible?


----------



## Parks (15/3/17)

bradsbrew said:


> Is it the _term_ marriage that predates the christian belief or the _concept_ of a lawful partnership? Meaning that, does the word marriage show up in any literature pre bible?


The term marriage didn't surface until the 1400-1550s and came from french. Not sure what the actual, original biblical term was.


----------



## Mattress (15/3/17)

madpierre06 said:


> Not unsurprising is the blatant mocking of someone and their belief system, and the support of such mocking......from those who cry foul at the first sign of disregard for anyone else's rights or beliefs. Quality work.


I know right. You tell the gays that they aren't entitled to the same rights that you have, and are therefore lesser human beings than you, and they get all uppity! Who would have thought.


----------



## SBOB (15/3/17)

madpierre06 said:


> I do see what you're saying, there has been far too much twisting and misrepresenting and specific manipulation of Scripture so as to completely misrepresent Christ's teachings. And to alienate people. I do believe that there is an underlying agenda to try and force churches into performing ceremonies between people who identify by sexual persuasion though.


The inclusion of same sex couples into the existing marriage act, would in no way enable the 'forcing' of churches into performing ceremonies which do not adhere to their beliefs anymore than an existing Christian couple could force a Synagogue to perform their wedding

Religious objections should not be a valid 'argument' with regards to equality of peoples rights, unless you are arguing for the inclusion of those people.

Considering up until somewhat recent history it was frowned upon to
- Marry between different religions
- Marry between different race

Both of these had the same 'religious' objections at that point in history.

The easy way to tell if your argument regarding marriage equality doesn't make sense with relation to a simple equality argument is replace the phrase 'same sex' with some other minority group. If you sound like a biggot/racist/etc, then your argument doesnt stand up


----------



## mtb (15/3/17)

Marriage is, in today's society, considered a religious union. So why is it the default method of "tying the knot"? Why does it matter that homosexuals aren't permitted to marry under a religion they choose not to follow?
(I'm not factoring in those who do follow a religion that forbids their sexuality.. not even sure how they should handle that..)

I thought this was the exact reason Civil Unions were created; as marriage without the religion. Happy for someone to correct my ignorance.


----------



## earle (15/3/17)

mtb said:


> Marriage is, in today's society, considered a religious union.


I would disagree. It's a legal union, some would argue that its a spiritual union.

You can be married without the religion by a non-religious celebrant. It's still a marriage.


----------



## Parks (15/3/17)

According to the ABS 75% of marriages are performed by a civil celebrant.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3310.0


----------



## mtb (15/3/17)

The point I'm trying to make is that the line is clearly blurred. The easiest way to clarify that line is let the religious have their word, what's the big deal?
Marriage is religious, Civil Union is non-religious. It gets pretty easy after that.


----------



## earle (15/3/17)

Err yes, the whites can sit in the front of the bus and the blacks in the back. A two-tier system. We can all see how well that worked out.


----------



## mtb (15/3/17)

Never said either would be disadvantaged in any way. If marriage was brought in by the French in 1400 then hasn't it predominantly been a religious term for six hundred years? How many gay marriages were there before the new millennium? 

Again, my point is, religion got to the word "marriage" long before same sex marriage came about. I don't agree with the prejudice, but I can understand why people believe it is religion specific. I think it's simply easier to define a new type of union instead of modifying the existing one.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (15/3/17)

Marriage has never been defined in Australian law as a religious institution. Even in 1961 when the marriage act was enacted into legislation, (then senator) John Gorton said:
"I am inclined to think that the reason why marriage has not been defined previously in legislation of this kind is because it is rather difficult to do so. Marriage, of course, can mean a number of things. For instance, it can mean a religious ceremony; it can mean a civil ceremony; and it can mean a form of living together. There are several meanings covered by the word ‘marriage’, which are quite different one from the other."


----------



## mtb (15/3/17)

And if you ask a priest? Would he say the same? 

No, he'd say that it is a religious union. And it's not worth the fight to make him, nor the entire community devoted to his teachings, change that definition


----------



## earle (15/3/17)

The concept of marriage wasn't brought in by the french, that specific word for the concept was.

I do understand why some people both religious and non-religious would think of it as a religious concept but would argue that the concept of marriage has been around for much longer than current religion. As Liam pointed out earlier in the thread same-sex unions were documented well before current religion decided to try to define and shape it to their version.

The problem with a second parallel concept or name is that it will be corrupted by those who see their version as superior. It has far more potential to create division than equality.


----------



## manticle (15/3/17)

It isn't worth the fight to you but to an enormous number of other people it is.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (15/3/17)

mtb said:


> And if you ask a priest? Would he say the same?
> 
> No, he'd say that it is a religious union. And it's not worth the fight to make him, nor the entire community devoted to his teachings, change that definition


what does a priest have to do with the law in this regard?


----------



## SBOB (15/3/17)

mtb said:


> I don't agree with the prejudice, but I can understand why people believe it is religion specific. I think it's simply easier to define a new type of union instead of modifying the existing one.


which means those who which to have a 'religious' based marriage can continue to do so, and no one else's 'non-religious' marriage should lessen or infer anything on their current union... Why don't they rename theirs to be a 'religious marriage' and everyone else can just have a plain old vanilla one. The majority of weddings these days (in this country at least) are not religious, so the majority can just keep the name..


----------



## SBOB (15/3/17)

manticle said:


> It isn't worth the fight to you but to an enormous number of other people it is.


indeed
arguing against the wishes for equality of a minority from a position of privilege and majority. Seems fair right?


----------



## mtb (15/3/17)

Liam_snorkel said:


> what does a priest have to do with the law in this regard?


Nothing - but those on the religious side of this debate would listen to their priest first. That was my point - they aren't all to happy with the law intervening.



manticle said:


> It isn't worth the fight to you but to an enormous number of other people it is.


Poor wording here on my part. It is worth a great deal of effort, but I don't see it as a winnable battle.. Christianity is too influential.


----------



## mtb (15/3/17)

SBOB said:


> which means those who which to have a 'religious' based marriage can continue to do so, and no one else's 'non-religious' marriage should lessen or infer anything on their current union... Why don't they rename theirs to be a 'religious marriage' and everyone else can just have a plain old vanilla one. The majority of weddings these days (in this country at least) are not religious, so the majority can just keep the name..


That's a fantastic idea.


----------



## earle (15/3/17)

mtb said:


> they aren't all to happy with the law intervening.


Agreed, as evidenced by recent and ongoing royal commissions. Doesn't make it right though.


----------



## bradsbrew (15/3/17)

De facto

In regards to legal terms, are gay couples that live together treated the same as hetro couples living together under a de facto relationship.

Being, if a gay couple are on centrelink and live together do the get the couples payment or singles?
If they split after whatever timeframe it is, are they legally bound to split possesion etc?


----------



## mtb (15/3/17)

earle - Certainly doesn't. I'm not advocating their beliefs or opinions, in fact many of them infuriate me - just trying to look at the issue from both sides without bias.
Suggesting that gay marriages be termed differently is verging on segregation and for that I should apologise - it wasn't my intent.


----------



## GABBA110360 (15/3/17)

this thread is outta control imho


----------



## manticle (15/3/17)

Really?
You new here?


----------



## Grott (15/3/17)

Lol manticle.


----------



## earle (15/3/17)

Last page or so has been pretty civil IMHO.


----------



## Grott (15/3/17)

We are on the 8th page earle so does that mean we are on the road to recovery.


----------



## mtb (15/3/17)

I'd say we're at the tipping point of the bellcurve. As peteru said..



peteru said:


> This thread is right about on track for Godwin's Law.


----------



## earle (15/3/17)

mtb said:


> I'd say we're at the tipping point of the bellcurve. As peteru said..


HITLER

Well its good to get that out of the way


----------



## manticle (15/3/17)

Just watched as much of the ad as I could be arsed with.

Nothing wrong with the concept of two people from the same political party with different views on marriage talking about it. The ad is cringeworthy but in the way that someone talking to you like you're 6 is cringeworthy.

'Hullo Children. Todaaiy, we're going to be talking about GAY people. People like you and me, except they're GAY.

Peter is GAY - Peter, tell us what being GAY is all about.'

Ad nauseaum.

Coopers apology is awkward and odd.


----------



## earle (15/3/17)

But seriously, two politicians presenting a balanced discussion? Two politicians from the same party?


----------



## manticle (15/3/17)

The content is pretty non existent.
The concept is two people may have some things in common but some others that divide and still have a civil conversation which is fine.

I'm atheist, advocate for marriage equality and a long way from LNP but the ad was hardly vitriolic or homophobic.

Mildly pathetic - yes.

So is Coopers light so good company. If they'd done it with the stout, I'd be in the frontline with a pitchfork.


----------



## mtb (15/3/17)

At least we can appreciate the lack of paleo pear or banana bread in said cringeworthy ad


----------



## manticle (15/3/17)

Jesus. Lots of storms in lots of teacups.

Maybe ad agencies could just start making some ads that are good instead of utter shite.

I guess if they could write something witty, exciting or informative, they'd be in comedy, drama or documentary respectively.


----------



## manticle (15/3/17)

That was almost as good as Look Around You :maths.
Except maths is an actual joke.


----------



## Danscraftbeer (15/3/17)

They have a Celebration Ale. What if they had a Celebrant Ale with slogans of marriage equality on the box?


----------



## Rocker1986 (15/3/17)

I really don't even know why this hasn't been already legislated and why we're still having a debate over it. On one side we have those pushing for equal rights, and on the other side we have those pushing against equal rights because of a belief system rooted in morals that are outdated and stagnant. It is completely unfair. A lot of people don't hold these beliefs, so why should we be subjected to laws based on them? Everyone cracks up about Sharia Law being "imposed" on us but they're seemingly fine with Christians denying gays the right to marriage. What's the fuckin difference? It's still religious crap getting in the way of legislation that affects people not of that religion.

I'm not religious and I don't believe in God, Allah or whoever else, and supposing I was gay, why should I be denied the right to marry my partner just because some people who do believe in those things say I can't because to THEM it's wrong? Nobody is forcing them to take part in it, nobody is forcing any church to hold a gay wedding, and nobody is forcing them to change their beliefs, but the gay community are all supposed to lie down and be forced to abide by a belief that most of them probably don't even have. What a crock of shit.


----------



## manticle (15/3/17)

Funny which countries we are behind.

US
Brazil 
Mexico
Argentina
Colombia 

And ******* South Africa....

Etc.

We'll eventually be dragged screaming into modern times, then the world will be engulfed in flame in a real life Benny Hinn prediction magically coming true while hens **** snails in an orgy of satanic depravity.


----------



## Bribie G (15/3/17)

Ok this has gone far enough.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (15/3/17)

bradsbrew said:


> De facto
> 
> In regards to legal terms, are gay couples that live together treated the same as hetro couples living together under a de facto relationship.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure of the specifics of those, but say if your partner dies and you have a will with eachother as beneficiaries, the family of the deceased can contest it


----------



## bradsbrew (15/3/17)

Let them be legally bound through wedlock and then they can be miserable like the rest of us!


----------



## bradsbrew (15/3/17)

Liam_snorkel said:


> I'm not sure of the specifics of those, but say if your partner dies and you have a will with eachother as beneficiaries, the family of the deceased can contest it


Isn't that the same for staight de facto?


----------



## Liam_snorkel (15/3/17)

that's the idea! :beer:


----------



## malt junkie (15/3/17)

Or go the other way disolve all maraiges and ban wedlock entirely


----------



## manticle (15/3/17)

Ban people


----------



## bradsbrew (15/3/17)

GABBA110360 said:


> this thread is outta control imho


I think that it has been a rather civilised conversation, considering the sensitivity of the topic.


----------



## peteru (15/3/17)

I made the mistake of going to the Cooper's web site and then watching the video they released. I could not finish watching it.

Just about any Hollywood director would be proud of that footage. This is a classic example of a hostage scene, where Tim and Melinda are being forced to read out a statement while the baddies have a gun pointed at their heads.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (16/3/17)

I got a similar vibe to this apology:
https://youtu.be/ORpBAIB9j64


----------



## michaeld16 (16/3/17)

I always liked Jim Jefferies solution. If your a bloke and don't like the idea of two blokes getting married, then don't marry one, easy fix.


----------



## Dave70 (16/3/17)

mtb said:


> At least we can appreciate the lack of paleo pear or banana bread in said cringeworthy ad


Oh dear..

That was so badly acted and reminiscent of some MILF / interracial porn I felt the first stirrings of an erection.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (16/3/17)

malt junkie said:


> Or go the other way disolve all maraiges and ban wedlock entirely


I am not sure the church, whichever denomination is totally against a civil same sex marriage, I just think, and fair enough on the churches part, they should have the right to decline marrying a same sex couple without the threat of being hauled up in front of the HRC, so as malt junkie (though not ban marriage entirely) the church could be forced into the position as demonstrated by the Anglicans to refuse to conduct any marriage ceremony whatsoever.


----------



## drsmurto (16/3/17)

The Family Law Act was changed in 2009 to include and define de facto relationships, including same sex, so that they are legally the same in the eyes of the law when it comes to the way they are dissolved, much the same as a marriage. Interestingly, you can be in multiple de facto relationships and you can also be in a de facto relationship with someone who is married to someone else. Even someone who was married in a church by a kiddy fucker. 

So whilst the god botherers may still lay claim to ownership of marriage, and the marriage act supports their view, in the eyes of the law, a de facto relationship is the same in every way. Thankfully, the laws of this country trump religious ideology.

My partner and I have been in a de facto relationship for 15 years, we chose not to get married but this is the entire point of marriage equality, we had the choice. To deny someone else that choice is discrimination. To hide behind a book is ridiculous. It's a work of fiction, modified countless times over thousands of years.

On topic, Coopers fucked up by getting involved in the marriage equality debate. If they had stuck to simply donating to the bible society, no-one would have batted an eyelid. They may now be arguing the original video had nothing to do with them but it's too late. All of their apologies look forced and fake. They'll need to put forward some really genuine and positive moves to support marriage equality to get some credibility back.

I love Tim Minchin, funny, intelligent and willing to sink the boot (sic) into religion at any chance. This is how stupid you sound trying to argue anything based on what is in your book.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMnEpOsGH4o[/youtube]


----------



## wynnum1 (16/3/17)

Is anyone boycotting subway over there exspokesman's pedophile convictions.
According to USA Today, the document alleges that Fogle had sex with “at least two minors,” reportedly 16 and 17 years old, between 2010 and 2013. He allegedly asked one of the victims to “provide him with access to minors as young as 14 years” for sex. “The younger the girl, the better,” he allegedly said.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (16/3/17)

wynnum1 said:


> Is anyone boycotting subway over there exspokesman's pedophile convictions.
> According to USA Today, the document alleges that Fogle had sex with “at least two minors,” reportedly 16 and 17 years old, between 2010 and 2013. He allegedly asked one of the victims to “provide him with access to minors as young as 14 years” for sex. “The younger the girl, the better,” he allegedly said.


May as well Geoffrey the whole of the Catholic church then.


----------



## Droopy Brew (16/3/17)

wynnum1 said:


> Is anyone boycotting subway over there exspokesman's pedophile convictions.
> According to USA Today, the document alleges that Fogle had sex with “at least two minors,” reportedly 16 and 17 years old, between 2010 and 2013. He allegedly asked one of the victims to “provide him with access to minors as young as 14 years” for sex. “The younger the girl, the better,” he allegedly said.


Let's boycott any company that has employed someone who, as it turned out, was a ****.


----------



## wynnum1 (16/3/17)

I've decided to leave my _New Years resolution_ until 2018. I think I want to be a _****_ for another year


----------



## Dave70 (16/3/17)

wynnum1 said:


> Is anyone boycotting subway over there exspokesman's pedophile convictions.
> According to USA Today, the document alleges that Fogle had sex with “at least two minors,” reportedly 16 and 17 years old, between 2010 and 2013. He allegedly asked one of the victims to “provide him with access to minors as young as 14 years” for sex. “The younger the girl, the better,” he allegedly said.


Err.. no Jared, thats not what we meant..


----------



## malt junkie (16/3/17)

The conundrum for me arose a few nights ago while watching tellie with my 6yo son. One of the 'reality tv' wedding shows was being advertised. He turned around to me and said." Dad, I want you to marry Mum." I was a little stunned, but responded with "I think we need Mum's ok first, what do you think?"


----------



## Rocker1986 (16/3/17)

I wonder if those who are against same sex marriage are also against stupid "reality" shows where people get married to each other after meeting five minutes earlier. The latter is making a far bigger mockery of marriage than same sex marriage ever has or ever will, which is none in reality.


----------



## earle (16/3/17)

https://www.facebook.com/theweeklytv/videos/1875854489329979/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED

"Keeping it heavy" segment towards the end of the clip. Best video related to this that I've seen - convincing participants, believable beers .....


----------



## eungaibitter1 (16/3/17)

I just ran into a couple of lezzos I know having a feed of chinky down the local bowlo and they were sloppin' down the Coopers Pale like it was nobody's business.


----------



## jlm (16/3/17)

michaeld16 said:


> I always liked Jim Jefferies solution. If your a bloke and don't like the idea of two blokes getting married, then don't marry one, easy fix.


So we haven't been talking about compulsory gay marriage this whole time? Just like, letting some gay people get married if they want to marry each other? Why all the carry on......Oh wait. Just remembered. Humans.


----------



## SBOB (16/3/17)

Rocker1986 said:


> I wonder if those who are against same sex marriage are also against stupid "reality" shows where people get married to each other after meeting five minutes earlier. The latter is making a far bigger mockery of marriage than same sex marriage ever has or ever will, which is none in reality.


or divorce...(whats the current rate, something >25% of marriages end in divorce. Those damn sinners)
you know that whole 'till death to us part' thing is so inconvenient sometimes, its best just to ignore parts of the religion that aren't convenient and only practice the bits you want.. Because bacon is yummy


----------



## wereprawn (16/3/17)

SBOB said:


> or divorce...(whats the current rate, something >25% of marriages end in divorce. Those damn sinners)
> you know that whole 'till death to us part' thing is so inconvenient sometimes, its best just to ignore parts of the religion that aren't convenient and only practice the bits you want.. Because bacon is yummy


Damn right, bacon is yummy. And shellfish ....oohhhh...a bacon and shellfish eating orgy sounds terribly sinful .

Edit- I'll definitely be off to hell if any of those shellfish are gay....or happen to be wearing mixed fabrics( as gay shellfish are known to do) or....


----------



## Danscraftbeer (16/3/17)

SBOB said:


> (whats the current rate, something >25% of marriages end in divorce.


I thought it was 5% are good?. I admire them. The rest are like all sorts of bullshit to levels too nasty to mention.
I'm anti Marriage. Therefore cant for the life of me understand why gays are fighting so hard for this bondage.


----------



## Rocker1986 (16/3/17)

It's not that hard to understand, they just want the right to choose if they want to or not like everybody else can, not be told flat out that they can't. Imagine if homebrewing was only legal for certain parts of society...


----------



## Danscraftbeer (16/3/17)

I thought the real deal was love. That's not a decision. It is. To think you have to sign a legal document to make it real?
My observations is (the legal bind) is what seemed to **** up many relationships. Or that is, or was a foundation of the fall of the relationship. 
Just saying. Not that I have any experience other than witnessing.

Oh, Your in love? Sign this legal binding document. :unsure:


----------



## Danscraftbeer (16/3/17)

But I do see the point. Let em roll the dice like everybody else. Just get it settled because it does seem to take up a lot of parliament time. You know how time means money etc.....


----------



## Rocker1986 (16/3/17)

That's not really the point though. And it seems to me that in those cases the relationship would probably fail anyway. Signing a piece of paper isn't the reason why couples grow apart or one of them cheats or whatever it is that causes the break up. The point is that the gay community is being denied the right to even make that choice in the first place, simply because it doesn't line up with a belief system based on ancient fiction.

If you don't want to get married, that's fine, nobody is forcing you to do it, but it is available for those who choose to go down that path. Making same sex marriage legal will not change a thing about that, not all of them will choose to get married but the ones who do want to will be able to.

Ed: Yeah, I think they should just put their beliefs aside for the good of the wider community and legalise it already. It's been done in other countries and they don't seem to have imploded yet.


----------



## earle (21/3/17)

Wow, we're so up with the times in Queensland. Only just got rid of the "Gay Panic" defence for murder.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/gay-panic-laws-pass-queensland-parliament-removing-partial-defence-20170321-gv32j8.html


----------



## Dave70 (22/3/17)

earle said:


> Wow, we're so up with the times in Queensland. Only just got rid of the "Gay Panic" defence for murder.
> 
> http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/gay-panic-laws-pass-queensland-parliament-removing-partial-defence-20170321-gv32j8.html


"Gay panic'. Sounds like bulllshit jargon invented to justify the behavior some un-justifiable ****. Much like 'sexual emergency'. Nice try, asshole.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3860168/Iraqi-refugee-raped-10-year-old-boy-Theresienbad-swimming-pool-sexual-emergency-conviction-overturned-Austrian-court-didn-t-prove-realised-boy-saying-no-incident-Austria-December-2015.html


----------



## Bribie G (22/3/17)

Daily Mail? Come on now. "Aliens turned my son into a fish finger".


----------



## good4whatAlesU (22/3/17)

NT news is entertaining:

"Check out my flaps" : - Man turns his broken thongs into mud flaps for his ute:

http://www.ntnews.com.au/lifestyle/darwin-river-man-gives-his-broken-thongs-get-new-life-as-mudflaps/news-story/9d061e8460c3bbfd57c941831d7f553e


----------



## Dave70 (22/3/17)

Bribie G said:


> Daily Mail? Come on now. "Aliens turned my son into a fish finger".


Yes, they are about on a journalistic par with Picture magazine, but the story is legit. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/iraqi-refugee-who-raped-10-year-old-boy-at-swimming-pool-in-austria-jailed-for-six-years-a7083931.html

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/true-stories/iraqi-migrant-rapists-sentence-overturned-because-jury-couldnt-prove-child-said-no/news-story/a9fa66c6d33fd91b022f701430910057


The good news is, if you can call it that, is the prick had his sentence increased, by a whopping 12 months. Just punishment for destroying a child's future? Not in my book. 

http://metro.co.uk/2016/12/14/sentence-increased-for-taxi-driver-who-raped-boy-10-in-sexual-emergency-at-swimming-pool-6321996/


----------



## Mardoo (22/3/17)

I like salad.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (22/3/17)

bradsbrew said:


> I am just waiting Stu's comments and how the discussion of this with his local Coopers rep at the local pub goes.


Phil is not religous and wont really care


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (22/3/17)

The only people to benefit from marriage are lawyers


----------



## Dave70 (22/3/17)

Mardoo said:


> I like salad.


In the pub I tend to go with the vegetable option (baked potatoes, peas and carrots and a little pepper sauce)

Chips and salad? What the **** is that? Oh dear, better offset the guilt of eating chips with some wilted lettuce a bland tomato. Yuck..


Plus, I always wash it down with a nice cold *Coopers. *Served in a glass like this.


----------



## Droopy Brew (23/3/17)

Why should gays be denied the same opportunity of misery as non gays?


----------



## Stouter (23/3/17)

Dave70 said:


> In the pub I tend to go with the vegetable option (baked potatoes, peas and carrots and a little pepper sauce)
> 
> Chips and salad? What the **** is that? Oh dear, better offset the guilt of eating chips with some wilted lettuce a bland tomato. Yuck..


I can't help but give a RocknRolla quote here, "Sausage and beans, all day long, mate."

Be interesting to see how Qantas CEO Alan Joyce's deal with Emirates pans out now he's signed on in the joint letter from business chiefs supporting marriage equality. Hypocritical much??
Apparently no one told him Dubai isn't keen on gays, or gay marriage.

Still, Perth to London non-stop flights might bypass any conflicts there. Maybe he's got his views ahead of the game.


----------



## Cerveja (23/3/17)

Stouter said:


> I can't help but give a RocknRolla quote here, "Sausage and beans, all day long, mate."
> 
> Be interesting to see how Qantas CEO Alan Joyce's deal with Emirates pans out now he's signed on in the joint letter from business chiefs supporting marriage equality. Hypocritical much??
> Apparently no one told him Dubai isn't keen on gays, or gay marriage.
> ...


Maybe his views have absolutely nothing to do with the game. He's been openly gay for a long time and it has had zero impact on the deals and close relationship with Emirates. As it should be. Seems to me that Dubai are waaaay more intelligent and mature about this issue than some of us.


----------



## Stouter (23/3/17)

Cerveja said:


> Maybe his views have absolutely nothing to do with the game. He's been openly gay for a long time and it has had zero impact on the deals and close relationship with Emirates. As it should be. Seems to me that Dubai are waaaay more intelligent and mature about this issue than some of us.


Sure, because $$$'s talk, just don't try going to live there as an openly Gay person right?!


----------



## Cerveja (23/3/17)

Stouter said:


> Sure, because $$$'s talk, just don't try going to live there as an openly Gay person right?!


Toally agree on both points Stouter. Just pointing out his sexual orientation has never affected commercial deals as was being suggested. Money talks.


----------



## Stouter (23/3/17)

Yes, the $$$'s.
Which is why I think he's being a just bit hypocritical.
It remains to be seen how the deals pan out.


----------



## manticle (23/3/17)

Did you either expect him to prevent international flights to dubai and similar places (Africa, Malaysia, etc) or to not openly support changing the government's stance?


----------



## Stouter (23/3/17)

Yes.
While both would be an option, one would be an easier option when compared to the other.
I wasn't suggesting preventing flights to anywhere, but for him to play both side of the coin as it were, shows little integrity for his beliefs.


----------



## manticle (23/3/17)

You know a company's decisions aren't made entirely by one guy don't you?

By that logic there should be no qantas flights in Australia till the government gets its shit together.


----------



## Stouter (24/3/17)

Might be a start.


----------



## Sidney Harbour-Bridge (29/3/17)

My cat wishes to marry the lawnmower, is this legal?


----------



## Stouter (29/3/17)

Only if the cat can start the lawnmower by itself, there's appropriate PPE being used, and it's not using twostoke.


----------



## TimT (29/3/17)

_My cat wishes to marry the lawnmower, is this legal?_

Of course it is, otherwise the lawnmower would be left all forlawn.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (29/3/17)

Is the cat CATholic


----------



## Brewnicorn (29/3/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Is the cat CATholic


Boom boom tish!


----------

