runner,

"if anyone does not think that paedophile has not increased dramatically since the destruction of the natural family they are totally naïve or stupid"

I suggest that you have a rethink.

"In the strictly hierarchical society of classical Greece, sexual relations between an adult man and a boy were seen as contributing to the boy's education. In late antiquity this view was questioned by, among others, the poet Ovid and the philosopher Plutarch. They argued that such a relationship was not fulfilling for the adult, since the boy, due to his inferior social status, was not allowed to express his own desire. This devaluated the joy of his adult partner and so men were better served by having sexual relations with women.

With the rise of Christianity, approved sexuality came to be located within heterosexual marriage, with procreation as its sole purpose. This was reflected in medieval legislation that established minimum marriage ages and prohibitions against INCEST and homosexual relations. With the ENLIGHTENMENT and the French Revolution in the eighteenth century, morality was no longer the responsibility solely of the Church. The gatekeeper of public and private morals was to be the state, and nineteenth-century penal legislation built upon this base, adding sections on sexual offenses."
http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Pa-Re/Pedophilia.html

I agree ttbn, the recent years have been noticeable for a decline in
"natural" relationships as the norm.
That series, "A Place to Call Home". shown on Foxtel had one distant
shot of a homosexual act briefly, just to satisfy the producers fancy.
It had no particular point to make in the program.
To me it tarnished the whole program, and destroyed the point they
were trying to make about the families acceptance of the son & heir.

Until some normalancy is restored to society and unnatural behaviour
is understood to be unnatural and is in its proper place as such we
will continue to get the aberrant behaviour we see in other areas.

Men dressing up as girls hnd vice versa has always gone on for fun
and amusement but it has never reached the elevation of a school subject !

Now back to the topic of the Folau case.

Israel Folau's case is an interesting one.
It sets up a clash between employment contract
law and legal protections against discrimination
on the basis of religion.

This could set an important employment law precedent for
future cases like this, which is especially contentious
at a time when religious freedom is being so fiercely
debated in Australia.

Rugby Australia terminated Folau's employment contract
after a tribunal determined his actions had breached the
organisation's code of conduct. The offending behaviour
was an instagram post by Folau in April, warning homosexuals
(among others) that: "Hell awaits You. Repent Only Jesus
Saves."

Folau has now brought a claim under Section 772 of the
Fair Work Act, challenging the termination was because of his
religion and therefore, unlawful.

According to media outlets Folau is claiming aroung $5 million
in lost salary and an additional $5 million in compensation
for other missed opportunities including sponsorships.

Rugby Australia maintains that Folau was dismissed
not because of his religious beliefs but because
he breached the player code
of conduct.

The code is typical of that of many businesses. It requires
players to treat everyone equally and with dignity, regardless
of their sexual orientation: not to use social media to
breach expected standards of behaviour; not to make public
comments or otherwise act contrary to the best interest of the
game.

cont'd ...

Just after writing the above I came across a comment about a
transgender man finding he was pregnant and wanting to be given an abortion.
Imagine the paperwork chaos, even computer crashes !

And we are expected to consider this NORMAL !!

cont'd ...

What makes Folau's claims unique is that it depends
on the court's view of whether Folau was dismissed
for reasons that included his religion.

Case Law tells us that Section 351 of the Fair Work Act
requires the employee to prove that an employer was
motivated to discriminate against him or her because of
religion. If an employer can point to an employee's
breach of their employment obligations as the reason for
dismissal instead of a discriminatory motive, then
the employee's claim fails.

This is going to be an interesting test for the courts.
And it is difficult to predict the outcome.

cont'd ...

Just another thought:

If you want to talk about freedom of speech,
read up on the Australian Federal Police
raiding the ABC for reporting the news, then
think long and hard about whether a foot ball
players social media postings are in the same
galaxy.