Now an ad hominem attack? I'm sure the authors of the article are sincerely flattered you've stooped to their level of employing logical fallacies to make points.You are not terra firma, you are full of it.
The website itself made that observation; I merely copied it and provided a link as means of citation. Do you think the students themselves demean the journal by stating they edit it?What is the point of saying the publication is edited by students if you aren't trying to demean it?
On the contrary, literary criticism of the authors' logic is quite a valid response.The bottom line is you have no valid response to the points made, except to attack the writers.
Simply proclaiming them "irrefutable facts" because you agree with them doesn't make them such any more than when the authors themselves did so. Apparently that's a failing you share with them. If they were "irrefutable facts" there would be no opposing opinions and those arguments would be prevailing in courts of law.Those points are being argued in court, but more important, they simply state irrefutable facts.
You're certainly entitled, like the authors of the article, to exercise your freedom of speech and state your personal opinions. That hardly makes them "irrefutable facts". And, unfortunately for you, they have no bearing on or relevance to the law except to the extent they can influence lawmakers, jurists, or voters. And the tide is turning or has turned on all three fronts, and not to your benefit.The bottom line is this. A ss couple will never ever be more than a sterile duplicated half of marriage.
No, kin by law. Which trumps your uninformed opinion.Kin by paper
Hate to break it to you, but opposite sex couples aren't kin by blood either unless they're committing incest or otherwise violating consanguinity restrictions within a state's marriage laws.and never by blood. A barren stub on any family tree.
Indeed. It's quite amusing to watch your cyber equivalent of foot stomping.Smile.