He impled the biological differences, ability to have a family as is the established interpretation in our constitution by many Attorneys General. It struck a chord with me mainly because of his view that it would completely alter one of the most protected and important and historic articles of our constitution when, in his opinion, it needn't have to and I've studied this article quite closely. Prior to this I wasn't going to pay much attention to the debates, especially considering the bigoted idiot who went viral last Friday, but now I'll pay close attention to it and assess the legal changes it will bring about. This will likely be minimal and then the deciding factor will be whether or not the homosexual community is satisfied with civil partnership over civil marraige, which they certainly aren't therefore I'll vote yes. The other reason why a yes vote is more appropriate is due to the fact that a civil partnership doesn't give the couple the same protection that a civil marraige does under article. 41.
Basically the article didn't change my vote to no but the reason why I'll vote yes, which won't be fuelled by emotions and morals but the legal and political ramifications of my vote. Considering this will be the first time I vote I think it's a good lesson to have learned.