Wolfson

He makes it his first task in extensively describing marriage because it is the central theme in his argument. We learned about that one type of argument in class where defining your X was how you had to write the argument. If your audience doesn't understand exactly what you're talking about, you won't convince them of anything because they will argue with you about what you are doing and not about what you meant to say.

He defines marriage today (key point-TODAY) as a legal union of those who love each other, regardless of gender/sex. I think this definition is slanted to his point of view. I agree with him, but I still think it is slanted. Many people would define marriage as sacred or as a convenient arrangement. Take for example other cultures. I think Wolfson's definition of marriage is what the definition of marriage should be, but just using the words 'should be' makes it automatically slanted. Not incomplete or illogical, just not taking into account other's views because he believes they're wrong.