Coopers "debate" is homophobic

                         Coopers Fake Debate

 The Bible society is a right wing religious hate group that advocates for teaching the bibles in schools, is against the Australian constitution, and opposes equal rights for LGBT Australians, they even have a book "that celebrates impact of the Bible on Australia’s First Nations People!".

 THAT'S PROBLEMATIC

 This bible society has teamed up with Coopers (a brewery that is a heavy donator to the Coalition) as part of a "creative campaign" they have place bible verses on a light Coopers beer's labels and are hosting light discussions on heavy topics. 

 The campaign started with a "debate" on marriage equality. 

And oh my it is a disingenuous bit of rubbish. So we have two coalition politicians siting around a cafe table with the "debate moderator". We are told that one of the politicians is pro-equal rights and the other is for discrimination.
 But that's really where the problem begins they don't call it marriage equality they call it same-sex marriage, and they don't call it pro-discrimination they call it pro-traditional marriage. So right from the start they are phrasing the "debate" in a biased way. And lets just look at that claim of traditional marriage a little bit,

 It is a fact that same sex couples have been getting married since at least 3100 BCE, please observe that this is long before the invention of Christianity which was around 355CE.

  In Australia we see that our marriage laws were changed in the marriage act in 2004, marriage was re-defined to specifically and unconstitutionally to exclude same sex couples. 

 So which is more traditional? 

Being a radical christian group its possible The bible society meant biblical marriage instead of traditional marriage. But that would lead to more problems check out biblical marriage here.

 Firstly the Bible Society claims that "Australia's national conversation has become fraught with shallowness and contempt for those who have a differing opinion,". I would agree that the homophobes excuses for denying LGBT Australians equal rights are often shallow, i would also add nonsensical. I would also agree that homophobes including those using the religion of Christianity as an excuse for their bigotry  have shown contempt for innocent homosexuals for over 200 years and continue to do so. 

 But as to a differing opinion, well that putting it very mildly, the pro-equality side is simply asking that LGBT Australians are given the constitutional rights they should have while the other homophobic side is fighting to keep a 2004 law that actively discriminates against LGBT Australians, i think that's a bit more then a differing opinion. And the only real reason the bigots have for this pro-discrimination stance is they hate gay people, and i don't think that's a good enough excuse to deny equal rights.

Now that that's out of the way i will just correct some of the misinformation presented in the "debate".

 Anyone who opposes Homosexual people having equal rights is by definition homophobic. 

 Equal rights is not a "light" subject, Not when a hate group endorsed by Coalition politicians has recently praised ISIL for killing gay men. Not when homophobes protesting an anti-bullying school program call LGBT children pedophiles and incite others to hang them. Not when up to 17% of male suicides would be prevented by simply allowing marriage equality.

 To suggest the two positions one wanting their constitutional rights and the other wanting discrimination are equal is ridiculous. Whats next a "debate' about racial equality with racists where the two positions are treated as having equal merit?

   

 It is impossible to have a real debate with homophobes. The first thing the homophobe said was a lie.Marriage has not always and is not even currently between one man and one woman, to say otherwise means he is ill informed and therefore shouldn't be forwarding a position on the matter or he is active being actively deceitful. As marriage between same sex couples have been happening since around 3100 BCE then that too predates the Australian state, but look it also predates Christianity. The moderator should have corrected this misinformation, or a better pro-equality speaker should have been given the opportunity to do so. But as it stands now it might look to the uninformed viewer that the homophobes argument was accurate and had merit, while in reality it did not.

 Suggested Bible Verse 01:

 The simple fact is that there is no valid argument against marriage equality. The current laws which re-defined marriage in 2004 to specifically deny same-sex couples the right to marry is immoral, unconstitutional and discriminatory. It should also be noted that the marriage laws are not supposed to reflect one religions current definition of marriage, civil marriage and religious marriage are supposed to be two separate things. Correcting the legal definition of marriage will not effect any religions homophobic definition of marriage at all.

Suggested Bible Verse 02:

What you can do:

Fax your MP and demand they uphold the Australian constitution and embrace Marriage Equality.

A lot of decent people are also boycotting Coopers brewery for this homophobic act.

UPDATE: 

 Coopers brewery have responded to the outcry of disgust by decent Australians. Their first press release defended the "Debate" advertisement, and went so far as to falsely claim the "debate" in the advertisement was balanced! They went on to childishly claim that those offended by the fake debate advertisement were not mature, and that Australia needs to debate if innocent people should have equal rights or if we should continue to allow discrimination against them. 

 They also made the demonstrably false claim that by participating in this joint campaign with the bible society they were not trying to spread any religious messages, this despite the fact that that is the bible society stated purpose for the campaign.

 In this press release there was no apology to the LGBT community of Australia, and there wasn't even mention of the LGBT community. They also didn't commit to doing the Australian thing by standing up for the underdog and making sure LGBT Australians have a fair go at marriage.

                                Awkward Moments Children's Bible a great source for verses

After the backlash from that first obnoxious press release Coopers Brewery released another. This one also repeated the insulting falsehood that they were not pushing any religious message. 
 But remarkably they now claimed that they had nothing to do with the fake debate Coopers advertisement claiming further that their brand was used illegally without their permission. 
 Now if this is true they will obviously try to sever all ties with this horrible bible society and at the very least will sue them in order to protect the Coopers brand. If its true.
 Again no support of equality, LGBT Australians equal rights were mentioned. They didn't identify how they were going to try to mend the damage to the LGBT Australians, or there brand identity.

 #boycottcoopers

 Its not just decent individual Australians who are boycotting Coopers, many clubs and pubs have shown their support for human rights by boycotting Coopers! Careful or you might rekindle our faith in humanity. 
 And wouldn't this be another great opportunity for Prime Minister Trumble to show he has a backbone and actually give LGBT Australians their equal rights?

 VIDEO

* Our video guy is recovering from surgery, he will make a YouTube version of this story when he can, sorry for any inconvenience.

Anti marriage group wants to legalise discrimination.

 Anti-Marriage Alliance submission 

to marriage inquiry.

 Australia recently had an inquiry into marriage equality. This inquiry specifically deals with exemptions for homophobic people and organizations.  Presumably this all came about because it was revealed that the coalitions idea of marriage equality would create a new, different and lesser version of marriage for LGBTI people, and would not be equality at all. 
 Personalty the whole idea is a bit sickening it seems to me to be like allowing rapists to be exempt from rape charges or giving racists exemptions from racial discrimination laws. And some of the groups that gave submissions to this inquiry are known LGBT hate groups, so its like inviting the hate groups to discuss how much they should be immune from prosecution or consequence for their hate crimes.
 So much for Malcolm Turnbulls promise that Australia had no place for Hate speech and no tolerance for homophobia.

 I am not going to go through all the nonsense "alt-facts", and lies of these submissions. They usually read from the same hate-book so addressing one should be enough...but which one. Thee is one that was in the news recently for distributing hate-speech pro-LGBT bullying to innocent children not long after a child died from homophobic bullying at school. You will remember that the (anti)Marriage Alliance distributed this filth on a school bus!

 Now I'm not going to go over every little detail in their submission as its unnecessary, many of the points can be refuted at once and unlike the far-radical-right i don't want to repeat myself.

 The submission makes a big deal about freedom of religion and freedom to practice that religion. Their own submission states that such freedoms are limited by their effect on the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. 

 I agree with all this completely. Indeed our own constitution has very similar amendments.  The problem with anti-marriage groups using this argument is of course that the argument is pro-marriage equality.  
 These rights don't just apply to radical fundamentalist Christians, no they apply to all religions. There are many religions and many more deity's that actualy recognize the natural diversity in sexuality. Indeed many christian churches want to marry their LGBT members.
 The current marriage laws which were changed only a while ago in Australia to exclude LGBT couples are actually in violation of the rights to religious freedoms. Because these people are being prevented from practicing their religion, they are unable to marry. It should also be noted that the current laws are unconstitutional as they force others to adhere to a (far-right) religious belief as if it is law. 
 And no, changing the law to allow marriage equality wont impede another persons religion as it will not be mandatory to marry a person of the same sex.

 The submission goes on to say that exemptions for religious ministers are not enough. They seem to want the legal ability to discriminate against LGBT married couples in all areas of life. 

 While i actually don't mind a minister not wanting to perform a marriage on basically any grounds. I do feel that the building itself should be accessible to anyone for free as these religious organizations don't pay tax or rates, because they are expected to provide a service to the community. Now if the church does not want to allow its grounds to be used by the community i also have no problems with it surrendering its tax-free status. (the submission directly addresses this but falsely claims this choice would amount to coercion).
 But as for the hairdresser, doctor, judge, or policeman being able to refuse service based on sexuality or marital status, no way. This is exactly akin to making racists immune from racial discrimination laws. I am sure if "Christians" were refused service because they were in a opposite sex marriage they would be in uproar, just look at the fake "war on Christmas" nonsense just because some stores chose to be inclusive with "happy holidays".

 They use the quote; Governments should respect the moral or religious teachings of parents / guardians. 

 They use this to attack the safe schools program. They claim that parents cant have their children opt out of the program, but i believe this to be untrue. However i think the program is even more important for children of bigots and homophobes, as they are probably more likely to bully other children. So while i think they are wrong saying they cant opt out, i do believe they shouldn't have that option, if your confident in your bigotry you should be able to have your beliefs questioned by your children when they are provided with the real facts.
 They complain that safe schools teaches that normal variance in sexuality is normal, because it differs with the beliefs of their particular interpretation of their chosen religion. Wow, how would they feel if a religion not their own was taught as fact in schools? I am sure they would not be happy at all. No (anti) marriage alliance school should be a neutral ground where real facts are taught, if you want to indoctrinate your children do it at home and on the weekends.
 They go on to bemoan that the time may come when religious schools are not permitted to be homophobic to their students, given the rates of youth bullying and suicide i personally think that day cant come soon enough. 
 And what about the rights of the child? A child should have the right to grow up knowing the reality of gender diversity (puberty is difficult enough without being surprised that your sexuality doesn't fit what you have been taught). A child should have the right to not be bullied at school? A child should have the right to not be shamed or beaten based on their sexuality, And a child should be able to grow up knowing they can marry the person they love. But the (anti) marriage alliance doesn't seem to care about the rights of the child.

 They go on and on about how horrible it is for them to see that normal sexuality is being accepted as normal,
 I fail to see how that's a bad thing. 

  
  They seem to admit that their bigotry is increasingly recognized as extremism.

  I tend to agree, but it is happening too slowly and there is still a reluctance to call a spade a spade. They seem alarmed at this but i can only say if you don't want to be labeled extremist, radical, alt-right, racist, sexist, homophobic just stop fitting that label, its really quite simple. 
 Now if you really feel it is your chosen deity or religion that forces you to discriminate, i have awesome news for you! You are actually free to choose your religion and which deity's you worship in this country. It may surprise you to know that many religions and most deity's actually recognize the diversity of human sexuality. Damn, you could even not follow any religion or powers, many people don't and they live moral, happy lives without feeling the need to discriminate. You don't even need to go that far, many Christians support the fair and equal treatment of other humans. It really is your choice. 

 In conclusion:

 It amazes me that they try to use freedom of religion to argue against freedom of religion for others. That they try to claim anti-discrimination laws should protect them but not their victims. They do this seemingly without irony or self awareness.  Could they really lack such empathy for others that they don't see the hypocrisy of their behavior?
 I think this kind of disingenuous argument comes from the fact that the legislation was changed recently to exclude same sex couples, and that the legislation does not in any way effect the various religious definitions of what marriage is. And their simply came a point where the majority of the public saw through "arguments' relating to this things too easily. You just cant say marriage cant be redefined anymore, because it has, it can and its not.

 If this is the standard of the anti-marriage submissions, it really does seem like the time of homophobic, unconstitutional marriage discrimination in Australia is drawing to a close, as the submission basically boiled down to;

 'We want to continue to discriminate against gay people without consequence and we think our interpretation of our chosen religion should give us cover to continue to do so.'

If you want me to examine more of these submissions, let me know.

Bigot Point: "Opposing gay marriage doesn't make me homophobic", debunked!

Bigot Point: 

"Opposing gay marriage doesn't make me homophobic"

 Debunked!

 There are some bigoted people who say and do extremely homophobic things, but then cry foul when they are rightly identified as homophobic. This is an easy one to debunk, frankly i don't even think the bigots saying this nonsense believe it.

 

 So lets get the definition out of the way first up, probably the easiest way to think of the definition of homophobe is to think of a racist, but instead of being prejudiced against a race the person is prejudiced against gay people.

 So with that out of the way, we can see that discriminating against gay people would be homophobic. We can see that not wanting gay people to have equal rights would definitely be homophobic. If you are against two same sex consenting adults having the right to marry you are homophobic.

 And no before you go there, it doesn't matter why you want to discriminate. Maybe you got drunk and hit on your gay same sex best friend in university and they turned you down, maybe your interpretation of your particular religion encourages your disgusting views, maybe you have repressed your own homosexuality and want to lash out at those brave enough to accept theirs, perhaps you believe that gays come from the moon to steal your socks,  it doesn't matter what the reason, how you try and justify your prejudice isn't important.

 If you don't want gay people to have equal rights, if you want to discriminate against gay people, your homophobic!

 By claiming otherwise you are trying to excuse homophobia. The problem isn't gay people wanting equal rights, the problem is the homophobes that are denying them.

 And please lets stop saying that describing someones homophobic behavior as homophobic is "name calling". Come on, that's as much "name calling" as calling a spade a spade is "name calling". If you have a problem with being labeled a homophobe you need to change your behavior, so you no longer accurately fit the definition, it is really that simple..