A Poorly Constructed Argument

I was reading an article by Jonathan Curci entitled "The Evolution of the Legal Concepts of “Family” and “Marriage” in the EU Legal System and Its Impact on Society." In the article, Curci argues against same-sex marriages, saying that they will be the downfall of society. In his conclusion, he makes three main points. This is his first point:

This circle can lead to a dysfunctional society. Often it is a dysfunctional heterosexual family that leads to homosexual behaviour. Indeed, scientific evidence demonstrates that a boy's perception that he has been abandoned by his father seems to be one of the factors associated with male attraction and homosexual behaviour. A girl's broken relationship with her father has a direct link to maintaining an intimate and emotional relationship with men. The loss of a father (through divorce) will mean that there is a higher risk of homosexuality. In turn, the legalisation of same-sex marriages means formally accepting most of the negative aspects causing this behaviour and promoting it as a new model (citation omitted).

This is his third point:

A final argument brought up by certain researchers is that a homoparental family model [...] runs counter to the interest of society since it annihilates the difference between sexes. This model is the first step towards a division of humanity into two worlds: one masculine and the other feminine, with no possibility that can recombine. The loss of any contact between a man and a woman may follow. There will be no effort to bridge gender differences since one can please himself staying in his own sexual world.

The funny thing is that he first argues that homosexuality is a result of dysfunctional families and is therefore outside of the person's control. After that, he argues that people -can- choose their sexual orientation and -will- choose it if they don't wish to interact with the opposite sex.

Furthermore, such a contradiction displays a complete lack of understanding in regards to scientific research on homosexuality. Not only has the author contradicted himself (and rather badly, too), but he demonstrates that he really does not peruse scientific articles carefully.