SENATE BILL: Equal Rights Amendment (Sent to the Regions)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

By sexual orienation it is understood to mean heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. The American Psychological Association does not consider sexual attraction towards objects, animals, youth as a 'sexual orientation' as there can be no reciprocation. In the case of children there can be no legal reciprocation.

If this is the assumed understanding, what does the "toward adults" part add?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

By sexual orienation it is understood to mean heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. The American Psychological Association does not consider sexual attraction towards objects, animals, youth as a 'sexual orientation' as there can be no reciprocation. In the case of children there can be no legal reciprocation.

If this is the assumed understanding, what does the "toward adults" part add?

It was added because ironically it was the issue of sexual orientation that I considered would have been the controversal inclusion. From past experience people don their skis and set off down the slippery slope thinking that making any concession to same sex adult relationships on the basis that same sex sexual orientation is inherent in some people means we'll be mandating paedophilia and dog sex.

For me the interpretation of the law even without the addition of the word 'adult' would be clear. Bear in mind that by 'sexual orientation' this amendment is not exclusively about LGBT individuals. So using an example a man can have a heterosexual attraction (that is paedophillic or ephebophillic) to a young girl but it is naturally against the law for him to act on it as minors are incapable of consent. However there is a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual acts. Sex with minors, children, dogs and lampposts for example are categorised as sexual/psychosexual disorders. I very much doubt that this classification will change. However I decided to include the term 'towards adults' in order to help define the terms in which the umbrella term of 'sexual orientation' would be protected. This is less direct that actually outlining precisely what sex acts are deemed okay (consenting adult to consenting adult) as I would never want that put in the constitution.

Normally, there is a distinction between acts and attraction, and this is important both in legal and psychological contexts. But from what you have said I see this amendment is meant to cover both as different aspects included under "sexual orientation."