AJ, You have no argument yourself to prove marriage is not a contract based on gender, now campaigned to be based on LGBTQQS gender as equality to male and female gender descriptors. You are obviously brain washed at University in gender fluidity; which is absolute Marxist rubbish. For 5,000 years we have only had male and female gender plus a very rare % hermaphrodite. The violation of a marriage contract is sex with another outside the relationship called adultery; if the LGBTQQS relationships are violated by sex with another, then the contract is based on a sexual bond. However their sexual bond is not a natural biological bond, but a chosen deviation.

Foxy,

"61.6 per cent of Australians vote Yes"

Well, 61.6% of Australians didn't did they?

So the Australian Financial Review is wrong and sending out a false message just as you are.

Wonder what the reaction would be if they headlined "61.6% 0f Australians invested in 'XYZ' stocks" when the true figure was only about a third.

Note that I did say that the lie was being repeated in the media.

That's a fallacious shifting of the burden of proof, Josephus.

<<You have no argument yourself to prove marriage is not a contract based on gender ...>>

You need to provide evidence of your assertions, not rely on your opponent's inability to prove you wrong - which is an argument from ignorance.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument-from-Ignorance

Despite the above, however, I have already provided sound reasoning as to why your assertions are wrong.

<<For 5,000 years we have only had male and female gender plus a very rare % hermaphrodite.>>

And still you don't understand the difference between biological sex and gender. In what way was my previous explanation unclear?

By the way, humans have been around for a lot longer than 5000 years.

AJ, You yourself do not understand gender! There has only ever been male and female for 5,000 years based on physical sexual descriptors, and suddenly some spurious Marxist University professor seeking fame now imagine gender is identified by personality descriptors. The terms sex and Gender have always been synonymous in every generation and culture for millennia. It is you who fail in uphold that marriage is merely a social contract based exclusively on attraction to another excluding of any bodily contact.

AJ. possibly the religious fundo is referring to some biblical interpretation that Adam and Eve were created 5,000 years ago, give or take 5 minutes.

Glad the hermaphrodites have finally got a mention, they have lacked the recognition they so richly deserve.

Just out of curiosity, why do you always mention the Catholics?
Issy that could be because I don't like the Catholic Church and their is plenty to mention about them.
You have asked the same question several times before, do you have memory problems

How quaint it is when a homophobic bigot will tell you how nice they are to such people. Like this one; "my daughter when single took in homosexual males as house share because they did not bother her and kept themselves and their rooms immaculate."

The connotation is these nancy boys would not put the hard word on her, and being famine as they are they kept the room neat and tidy like good girls do. Not like those macho men from the local footy team. Fr Joe, did they also help your daughter with her make up, and help her choose an outfit to wear. Of course the house guest had to fit the classic stereotype for a homosexual male otherwise you could not be sure what you were getting, Right?
Unfortunately for some homophobes not all gays fit their classic image of what gays should be. Like the bloke who tells a crass homosexual joke to a fellow "matcho" work college, only to be embarrassed to find out later "matcho" is gay.

I think we all understand the difference between biological sex and gender. What you don't understand is, we reject it.

It was not a socially or culturally acknowledged or accepted trait till the queers started looking for and fabricating reasons as to how they were going to get their agenda across the line.

A male with feminine traits is still a male. I don't care that he is effeminate. He is simply a guy with a more gentle and caring demeanor.

A queer is all of the above but with one difference he prefers other males.

This has never been a socially accepted standard till the queers started pushing their agenda and their weight around to emotionally blackmail people into giving in to their demands.

As far as I am concerned there are only three forms of homo sapiens, male, females and neuters. This is just one of the definitions by Monash Uni, for those continually badgering for proof.