Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Texas Phys.Resource Council, Christian Med. & Dental Association, Catholic Med.Association
ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND Attorneys for Amici Curiae ^ | February 18, 2003 | Glen Lavy, Counsel of Record

Posted on 05/12/2003 4:34:22 PM PDT by Remedy

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last
Center for Arizona Policy The APA's brief cites to Laumann et al. to support their statement that the sexual practices prohibited by the Texas law "are important aspects of sexual intimacy for many American heterosexual couples." APA Br. at 21. However, Laumann's study specifically reveals that oral sex is "a technique with which most people have at least some familiarity, but it has in no sense become a defining feature of sex between women and men (as vaginal intercourse or, perhaps, kissing is) . . . it is important to establish at the outset the ambiguity of oral sex in the repertoire of [heterosexual] techniques." Laumann et al., supra, at 101.

Laumann's research also reveals that heterosexuals engage in anal sex even less than oral sex: "anal sex has not entered into the repertoire of regular sexual practices of most women and men in the United States." Laumann, supra, at 107. This study found that only one-quarter of men and one-fifth of women have experienced anal sex over a lifetime, and is far less frequent than that in any given year of life. Id. Heterosexuals were also 79% less likely to find anal intercourse as "very appealing" compared to vaginal intercourse. Laumann et al., supra, at 152-155, Table 4.2.

Because oral and anal sex are primary means of sexual activity between individuals of the same sex (APA Br. at 22-23), and such is not the case with heterosexual couples, it should be considered that the Texas law has reasonably and narrowly drawn their prohibition of "deviate sexual intercourse" to those couples where it is most likely to take place. The Texas law may also contemplate the higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases which are related to certain sexual behaviors, and seeks to prohibit behavior associated with a higher prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (not only HIV/ AIDS) and sexually associated infections and other illnesses. Laumann et al., supra, at 396.

It is well-documented that as the number of sexual partners rise, the likelihood of having a partner with a sexually transmitted infection also rises. Laumann et al., supra, at 403; see generally Hickson et al., supra. As has been noted, homosexuals have a much greater number of sexual partners, 23 as compared to heterosexuals, and engage in sexually riskier activity, 24 therefore, there are serious health considerations implicated in same-sex sexual activity which should be taken into account when a legislature proscribes certain sexual activities.


Briefs filed at the United States Supreme Court - John G. Lawrence, et al. v. Texas, No. 02-102, Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah (State Attorneys General) American Center for Law and JusticeJay Alan Sekulow, Counsel of Record American Family AssociationStephen M. Crampton, Counsel of Record Center for Law and Justice InternationalPat Monaghan, Counsel of Record Center for the Original Intent of the ConstitutionMichael P. Farris, Counsel of Record Concerned Women for AmericaJanet M. LaRue, Counsel of Record Family Research Council & Focus on the FamilyRobert P. George, Counsel of Record Legislators, State of TexasKelly Shackelford, Counsel of Record Liberty CounselMathew D. Staver, Counsel of Record Pro Family Law CenterRichard Ackerman, Counsel of Record Texas Eagle Forum; Daughters of Liberty Republican Women of Houston, Texas; Spirit of Freedom Republican Women's ClubTeresa Stanton Collett, Counsel for Amici Curiae United Families International

1 posted on 05/12/2003 4:34:22 PM PDT by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: scripter; EdReform; I_Love_My_Husband
ping
2 posted on 05/12/2003 4:37:39 PM PDT by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don'tMessWithTexas
ADF & Texas ping
3 posted on 05/13/2003 6:39:47 AM PDT by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Remedy; *Homosexual Agenda; GrandMoM; backhoe; pram; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
I realize there have been more homosexual agenda pings lately than what you may have signed up for. Please let me know if you want on or off the ping list.

Homosexual Agenda Index
Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search
All FreeRepublic Bump Lists

4 posted on 05/13/2003 7:58:37 AM PDT by scripter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
I'll have to read this later when I find my glasses and have a half an hour!
But why single out same sex sodomy? That seems "unfair". The references I've seen on FR quoting old laws against sodomy were equal opportunity. It's so revolting and against nature that all sodomy should be illegal. (And I use sodomy in the generally accepted meaning of anal "sex".)
5 posted on 05/13/2003 1:14:12 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pram

why single out same sex sodomy? That seems "unfair". The references I've seen on FR quoting old laws against sodomy were equal opportunity

SODOMY : He has no mama now

State's Sodomy Law Puts Lesbian's Judgeship In Jeopardy According to Adams, Virginia has invoked its sodomy law in recent years only to prevent homosexuals from adopting children and to discriminate against homosexuals involved in child custody battles. This illustrates precisely why Sodomy Laws are necessary. 101 posted on 01/22/2003 5:48 PM CST by traditionalist

. It's so revolting and against nature that all sodomy should be illegal. (And I use sodomy in the generally accepted meaning of anal "sex".)

I agree.

6 posted on 05/13/2003 2:09:59 PM PDT by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
Thankis for the links, I read some and saved some. I'm way beyond outrage.
7 posted on 05/13/2003 4:04:02 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: narses
ping
8 posted on 05/15/2003 1:51:51 PM PDT by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scripter
BUMP-Thanks for keeping my updated scripter, I am back one day early!
9 posted on 05/17/2003 2:10:20 PM PDT by GrandMoM ("Vengeance is Mine , I will repay," says the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kegler4
pull your head out
10 posted on 05/20/2003 12:42:22 PM PDT by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Emmylou
Will you ever have a clue,Emmylou.
11 posted on 05/20/2003 12:55:11 PM PDT by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: breakem
ignorance is not bliss
12 posted on 05/20/2003 1:05:15 PM PDT by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
If ignorance is not bliss, you must be a very unhappy person.

Didn't want to be on this thread, but saw your statement. Surprised you left the other one without answering your homework questions about the law etc. Well a fresh start won't make you any smarter. Same ignorance, different thread. I'm out.

13 posted on 05/20/2003 1:20:43 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: breakem
You struck out long ago.
14 posted on 05/20/2003 1:26:00 PM PDT by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Trace21230
.
15 posted on 05/20/2003 2:36:52 PM PDT by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
For future reference
16 posted on 05/20/2003 8:10:32 PM PDT by Boiler Plate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Wise up loon, or forever remain clueless
17 posted on 05/20/2003 8:48:29 PM PDT by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
POST #17
18 posted on 05/20/2003 8:53:44 PM PDT by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
Just so you'll know -- and I'll know that you know -- it's considered totally bad netiquette on FR to drag arguments from thread to thread.
19 posted on 05/20/2003 8:56:59 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
SODOMY IS SODOMY regardless of the thread!
20 posted on 05/20/2003 9:01:42 PM PDT by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson