In the article, the principle issue is that same sex marriages should not be allowed since it is something that is uniquely attributed to heterosexual couples. The author uses explanations from the areas of biology, law and nature to explain his opinion.
While reading the article, it was difficult to look past the bias in it. For example, the author states that heterosexual marriages and followed intercourse leads to procreation and to the stability of the western civilization. That seems quite farfetched and distorted. While more children bring a positive demographic change, it is quite twisted and bizarre to claim that it is the role of married couples to procreate just to keep the stability of the western civilization. Plus, its much exaggerated.
The main area in the article that is quite vague is that which speaks about the role of married heterosexual couples in driving and maintaining the western stability by procreating and having more children. The author refers to it as a role for them to carry out and fulfill, and this perception seems quite distorted and untrue. Moreover, it is stated that an acceptance of homosexuality will bring about the decline of western civilization, as the denouncement of it enabled the creation and continuance of this civilization.
Although having a wrong perception of the situation, the source does seem credible. It does not only present facts meant to convince and persuade readers to agree with it, but also presents some opposite opinions and fact, such as the one about the MCCs acceptance of gay marriages.
The article doesnt have any rhetorical devices. By carefully reading it several times, Ive seen that there are no analogies, anacoluthon, alliterations, antitheses, diction, imagery or others.
The main fallacy presented by the author once again has to do with the role of the heterosexual and married couples in maintaining the stability of the western civilization by their procreating and delivering more children. The author claims that that is what has kept the western civilization throughout the centuries, and this is clearly false and exaggerated.
One argument the author makes is that men and women are uniquely biologically compatible, and explains his claim by saying that the human body can identify the intrusion of any unknown or alien matter into it and destroys it. However, the mans semen contains something that enables it not to be destroyed by the womans body, hence bringing forth the possibility of creating a baby.
The conclusion of the author in the article is that marriage is a tool which leads to having children, and since the bond of "two become one" exists biologically and historically only between men and women, marriage of homosexual couples should not be allowed.
The authors arguments are invalid and weak. He speaks of heterosexual couples as vessels and of marriage as a tool of bringing children, and that is clearly wrong. Also, his claim about "two becoming one" is invalid because during intercourse, this happens between homosexual couples as well as heterosexual couples, regardless of whether it can produce a child. Also, it is states that some organizations, even those who are regarded as religious, enable same sex marriages. Finally, the claim about the stability of western civilization is preposterous.
The author tries to use some sort of incorrect moral by saying that the institution of marriage transcends personal will, individuality of political fiat.