' The debate is now heated enough for violent protests. Be warned.'

Yeah Not_Now.Soon we have seen the violent bigots at work a lot lately. YOu know the tantrum throwing mob who are still sooking over Hilary and her embarassing loss. Many of them are cowards wearing masks. Shows you why corporal punishment should never have been done away with. The getup clowns are among the worse.

School ‘wear a dress’ fundraiser hijacked by SSM debate
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/school-wear-a-dress-fundraiser-hijacked-by-ssm-activists-on-both-sides/news-story/fe53cd4b306b989f0564cbdfe8b2b383

Instead of wearing dresses maybe the white kids could all show their solidarity instead by going to school in blackface?
This would be less gender specific, after all why aren't boys included?
Do boys not suffer in Africa, only girls?

Steele:

Inclusivity as determined by the AFL should apply only to their jurisdiction. The examples you gave fall within their jurisdiction. They have a say on how indigenous footballers should be treated but not on indigenous policies in general. They also have a say on whether women should be allowed to play their game. They also should have a say about the incorporation of minority sexualities into football. All these things affect football and it is appropriate for them to have opinions and policies in this regard.

SSM has no effect on football. The current legislation has no affect on football nor will any future legislation have any effect on football. Seeking to influence society outside of football is inappropriate. Society is quite capable of making change without the input of the AFL.

Many people agree with the inclusivity of the AFL but disagree with SSM. There is nothing illogical about this unless you think that inclusivity means agreeing with every opinion that is promoted by the homosexual lobby.

Re the Catholic church;
Why would you employ someone who you think supports a lifestyle you
believe is not just wrong but abhorrent ?
Would you permit them to be teachers of children for whom you are responsible.

It comes back to the question I raised some time back;
If you were a public servant in the department approving adoption of
children, would you approve homosexual men adopting young boys ?

Could you risk that boy coming back to sue you in say 20 years time ?
Lots of precedents for historical offences !

any violent protests at Muslim no campaign? Thought not. Hypocritical cowards.

The shadow attorney general has made it quite clear that repressive
legislation will be introduced when when next labour attains office.
Just watch what people with opinions like Philip 1405 indicate.

Go off and read what has been happening in Canada and the UK.
Canada is in the process of tightening the screws with new legislation
to be introduced quiet soon.
It starts out with legislation directly related to the subset SSM and
then morphs to LGBYQXYZ legislation as SSM is included in the set LGBYQXYZ.

It is simply logical.