Well there you go.
It's my opinion that our government ought to be secular and not under the influence of religious lobby groups. Admittedly I know very little about the Australian Bible Society and how “fundamentalist” they are, but the Australian Christian Lobby certainly has a reputation for interfering.
And yes, I know that our head of state is also Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Regarding the notion of “traditional marriage”, I call bullshit. In modern history the age of consent has changed, interracial marriage was once illegal, same-sex marriage was not explicitly forbidden until 2004, divorce (prohibited by the bible) used to be fault-based, women were regarded as property, de facto relationships have only been recognised since 1975, etc etc etc
If you want to get biblical you'll first need to sift through the polygamy, immaculate conception, sex with angels, incest, obedience, servitude, rules about who has to marry whom after rape … it's all very technical and contradictory. Perhaps that's why we focus on short-sighted “tradition”.
Anyway, I'm for a secular society.
To the issue at hand, if you don't like the idea of gay marriage, fair enough. We supposedly have free speech so it's you're right to say whatever is on your mind, but it's also everyone else's right to call you a bigot for saying so. Using religion as a trump card though? That's a no-no. Be honest about it, and don't go pushing “faith”-based beliefs on others.
I am with you on this one and very well stated!
I think you really missed the point of the whole exercise, I also believe that you won't be the only ones.
The only response I have is Relax Don't Worry Have A Home Brew or a Coopers Light
Wow. That's pretty bad.
Coopers has produced 10,000 cases of beer printed with Bible verses as part of the deal.(link)
Thanks for bringing it up, King Rudagger. What bugs me about this campaign more than anything is not that it is direct support for a religious institution, or even that there are perhaps bigoted or homophobic ideals expressed in it. It's promoting an anti-intellectual mindset where “everyone has an opinion” (no matter if it's based on something irrational), where you have to be respectful and tolerant even of the most noxious, unscientific, dangerous, inhumane, or transparently motivated ideas. I'm not saying you should be disrespectful to individuals, but there are plenty of arguments we should not tolerate. This is the kind of thinking on the part of Coopers that allows, for example, Tony Abbott to be the Minister for Women, or a climate-change denier the head of America's Environmental Protection Agency. It's the death of expertise.
I really don't like it. And it is probably the kind of thing that makes me wonder where my money goes.
I may have missed the point to Scottie , would you enlighten me ?
Cooper's as a whole and as individuals have every right to associate with any other body they so choose and i tend not to hold others beliefs or lack of against them , wish i could get the same freedom to not believe in 1 less God than they do .
I don't drink light beer so won't be seeing these at my place anytime soon .
King Ruddager I agree.
I am very disappointed that my beloved beer will have ‘quotes’ from a fairy tale system. From a company that uses science to make the best brew around to support and encourage the nonsense of any religion is beyond me.
This will influence my purchasing Coopers products.
The quotes are fine if that's what they want to do. The bit that makes me uncomfortable is corporately sponsored, religion-based politics.
The only part of the bible story that makes total sense is this Jesus guy being a chippy …. he took off fishing and drinking with his mates at any opportunity ….sounds legit ! otherwise i'll keep my rather scathing opinions to myself unless asked for them ( reformed Catholic )
I'm with you Ruddy. This has diminished my opinion of Coopers. IMHO business should not be used to push a religious agenda; it is just not polite, given what a diverse world we live in.
It seems pretty cheeky to me that Coopers are using alcohol to push a traditional definition of marriage/family. Alcohol, which is disinhibiting and addictive, has arguably done more to harm marriages/families than same-sex marriage has or ever could.
As many of you know, I live in Canada, where same-sex marriage is legal. As far as I can tell Canadian society hasn't gone down the tubes in the nearly twelve years since same-sex marriage has become legal.
Not sure what the Religious Right in Australia wants in terms of same-sex relationships. No state recognition? Common-law rules? Something that almost amounts to marriage, but is called something different?
The sanctity of marriage is a cornerstone of Australian society ( sic ) We have TV shows where i can marry a total stranger and it be perfectly legal in the eyes of church and the law but a few couples i know who've been together for up to 25 years cannot because they either both sit or stand to pee .
I'm not concerned about Coopers latest stunt. Its their money and they can spend it however they like. It wouldn't influence me in any way on my continued support for Coopers products. My view is that if the actions of others don't adversely affect me or others in society then people can do whatever they like.
About the religious, gay and lesbian marriage debate. Likewise the above about it having no affect on me applies. I respect other peoples belief and faith in religion as long as they don't ram it down my neck and want me and the rest society to run on their religious point of view. I don't accept the argument put forward in the debate that marriage between a man and a woman pre-dates government, therefore we shouldn't be changing it. The non existence of taxes also pre-dates government, so should we abolish taxes based on that argument?
I absolutely support gay and lesbian marriage and times and society's attitudes have changed, and I feel now as a society in Australia we are ready to accept it. Like I said it will have no adverse affect on me and others from what I can fathom so if it is going to make a lot of same sex couples happy then I am all for it.
That's pretty disappointing stuff from coopers. The family can have its own personal beliefs but that shouldn't bleed over into the business. I've seen this before in other companies I've worked with and personally find it uncomfortable with a tendency to alienate those not of a similar mindset. The same will apply to their customers no doubt.
Well must admit that I've been anti same sex marriage. Yes I know same sex couples who have been together many years, and they are the nicest people you could meet.
Maybe Ruddy's on the right track. Over the millennia, ideas have changed and changed, just as Ruddy points out. And they will keep on changing until the end of time.
Guess my attitude has changed somewhat today. As far as I'm concerned people should be able to make their own choices in life, as long as what they are doing is not harming other people. And by that I mean, physical harm. Mental harm, if you really want to call it that, is irrelevant. There are many things happening in the would that are against our individual beliefs, but that's life. And as Christine pointed out, Canada has not changed for the worse since adopting it.
As for Coopers' involvement? Well once again, it is their right where they wish to spend their money, whether I agree with it or not, and it doesn't bother me. In fact from my point of view, it is all irrelevant. Won't change my view about Coopers' products. At least it seems to be promoting a debate where people don't attack the person, but rather debate the issue in a more respectful manner. In my long life I have been involved in many debates and negotiations, and once a person attacks another person the whole process turns to shit.
I was having a “debate” with my workers and the yard delegate, whom I had always had friendly relationships with, started attacking me personally. I walked out of the meeting. At the end of the day, I also won the debate as the others saw that man's actions for what they were.
I just wish the powers that be, read our politicians, would just pass the required amendments to the marriage act and get on with the bigger issues of running the country, and there are plenty of them. Don't hold your breath though.
For me, one of the most powerful statements I heard at Writers' Week (as a lapsed Catholic of mainly Irish heritage, I'm passionate about books) was disbelief that churches and the state still claim rights over women's bodies and reproduction choices.
Why any government still feels entitled to limit our personal, private choices is a complete mystery to me.
I must say that while it's perfectly fine for Coopers to accept a contractual brewing arrangement like this, its apparent endorsement of the programme leaves me feeling a bit uncomfortable.
Politics and religion, a sure fire conversation starter every time
Hear what you say Mark. Churches, well yes I can accept that they still want to tell us, particularly women what they can do with their bodies, and the fact that Catholic couples are not to use contraception, but there is no compulsion under law for anyone to follow these edicts. That is their choice.
What does bother me greatly is the state and its continually increasing restrictions on our rights. I believe we are still a democratic country, well it was last time I checked, but that democracy is being eroded almost daily. Freedom of speech, of course, is the big issue at the moment, as demonstrated by 18C. Never in my 71 years have I seen restrictions like this. Sure if you said real naughty words in public, or at least within earshoot of a Lady or even a copper, well you could get into strife.
But over time, even the worst of language has become tolerated. But when I want to buy food for example, why do I have to support something like halal that the manufacturer has had to pay for. Has probably increased the cost of the goods to me. I've even seen plastic containers with halal certification. I mean, do they have to face mecca when they are making the plastic container?
Okay, the gay people want marriage equality, that is fine, for mine they can have it. But what about my rights? Why do I have to put up with cost imposts just to suit some religion? You know, we have had yiddish(jewish) people living here for donkey's ages, they have special food requirements, but there has never been anything like halal.
So to all my brewer friends out there, who gives a damn about marriage equality, about Coopers teaming up with a bible group, about what different religions impose upon their members, I don't give a shit. What concerns me more than anything else is the continual erosion of our democratic right to free speech. The right to put our opinion - without attacking the person.
One thing I really don't get it with some of the religions is their strong stance against abortion and contraception whilst often silence and the old ostrich act with regard to the pedophilia that has been inflicted by often senior members of their order. They only seem to want to act when the public spotlight has been shone on them. That to me is an acceptance that pedophilia is OK. Makes me really question their moral code.
But when I want to buy food for example, why do I have to support something like halal that the manufacturer has had to pay for. Has probably increased the cost of the goods to me. I've even seen plastic containers with halal certification. I mean, do they have to face mecca when they are making the plastic container?
I mean this is going back to “opinion” that's unfounded in either evidence or logic, though. Pithy jokes aside, I can't imagine there is any measurable increase in expense borne by a consumer when something like a plastic container or a tub of yoghurt is certified as halal. It's a very cheap gesture of inclusivity, essentially. Yet this “opinion” is used to promote a broadly conservative and nationalistic mindset which conveniently always seems to have a particular minority to vilify…
… It's promoting an anti-intellectual mindset where “everyone has an opinion” (no matter if it's based on something irrational), where you have to be respectful and tolerant even of the most noxious, unscientific, dangerous, inhumane, or transparently motivated ideas.
Everyone does have an opinion and ought to be allowed to voice it, but that right does not come with protection from ridicule as some seem to think (eg Sonia Kruger a few months back). Religion especially seems to be afforded special protection because of “faith”. Faith? What's that? Somehow faith is seen as a virtue, but really it's a chosen belief based on no (or in spite of all) evidence.
Jeremy, don't know you mate, never met you, but isn't this discussion really about peoples opinions. Ruddy is quite correct. I recall very well what happened with Sonja Kruger, and that was a bloody disgrace.
Jeremy, my outlook is live and let live, but do not interfere with my personal live and let live. We are all entitled to our OPINIONS, and rugged debate can be very beneficial. But do not attack the person. Debate the subject.
And if you follow a faith, good for you. And for all others, including Muslims. Just do not try to forcibly impose your beliefs on mine. And there are many religions around that try to do just that.