Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25
Only because no one has fought for it yet. If they ever did I'm sure some lawyer will come up with a term that is equivalent to sexual orientation.
|
As has been mentioned already, the fact that no one has fought for it yet is probably the most probative observation of all (in terms of it not being a fundamental personal characteristic.)
With respect to your second point, terms coined by lawyers are not persuasive. Evidence is persuasive. And there are decades worth of evidence that very strongly proves that homosexuality is an enduring biological and psychological pattern of attraction to one's own gender. No such evidence exists with respect to attraction to one's own family members.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25
And why does a person who want to marry their sibling have to only be attracted to family members? A bisexual can choose either a man or a woman to marry.
|
Again, it is not necessary to only be attracted to one's sibling. However, it is necessary for there to exist a pattern of attraction to one's siblings, and for people to identify themselves as being attracted to their siblings (in the sense that this trait is part of who they are.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25
And some people describe themselves as John's sister or Mary's brother.
|
Again, the law does not prohibit people with siblings from marrying, therefore the fact that one identifies as "John's sister" is irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25
What you are arguing is semantics. There is no difference except sibling relationships are looked at with disgust and not political correctness.
|
I don't think that I am arguing semantics at all.