In 1986, the Supreme Court, upholding Georgia's antisodomy law, ruled right to privacy did not extend to same-sex couples.
• In 2003, the Supreme Court reversed itself (in Lawrence v. Texas) and extended the right to privacy to same-sex couples.
• The decision, they wrote, "calls into question ...state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity."
Denying them is a violation of religious freedom (civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions).
Marriage benefits (such as joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity) should be available to all couples.
Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with most evidence strongly supporting biological causation.
Denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination.
It doesn't hurt society or anyone in particular.
The only thing that should matter in marriage is love.
The number of child adoptions should increase since gay couples cannot pro-create (although some might see an increase in gay adoptions as an argument against same-sex marriages).
It encourages people to have strong family values and give up high-risk sexual lifestyles.
The same financial benefits that apply to man-woman marriages apply to same-sex marriages.
Most religions consider homosexuality a sin.
It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage.
It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society.
It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an animal could be next).
It confuses children about gender roles and expectations of society, and only a man & woman can pro-create.
The gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged, as a lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems.
n the 1870s feminists advanced the concept of voluntary motherhood as a political critique of involuntary motherhood and expressing a desire for women's emancipation. Advocates for voluntary motherhood disapproved of contraception, arguing that women should only engage in sex for the purpose of procreation and advocated for periodic or permanent abstinence.
Cover of the 1919 Birth Control Review, published by Margaret Sanger. In relation to "How shall we change the law?" Sanger wrote "...women appeal in vain for instruction concerning contraceptives. Physicians are willing to perform abortions where they are pronounced necessary, but they refuse to direct the use of preventives which would make the abortions unnecessary... "I can't do it - the law does not permit it.""
In the early 20th century birth control was advanced as alternative to the then fashionable terms family limitation and voluntary motherhood. The phrase "birth control" entered the English language in 1914 and was popularised by Margaret Sanger, who was mainly active in the US but had gained an international reputation by the 1930s. The British birth control campaigner Marie Stopes made contraception acceptable in Britain during the 1920 by framing it in scientific terms. Stopes assisted emerging birth control movements in a number of British colonies. The birth control movement advocated for contraception so as to permit sexual intercourse as desired without the risk of pregnancy. By emphasizing control the birth control movement argued that women should have control over their reproduction, and the movement came to have close ties to the feminist movement. Slogans such as "control over our own bodies" criticised male domination and demanded women's liberation, a connotation that is absent from the family planning, population control and eugenics movements. In the 1960s and 1970s the birth control movement advocated for the legalisation of abortion and large scale education campaigns about contraception by governments. In the 1980s birth control and population control organisations co-operated in demanding rights to contraception and abortion, with an increasing emphasis on "choice".
Birth control has become a major theme in United States politics. Reproductive issues are cited as examples of women's powerlessness to exercise their rights. The societal acceptance of birth control required the separation of sex from procreation, making birth control a highly controversial subject in the 20th century. In the United States birth control has become an arena for conflict between liberal and conservative values, raising questions about family, personal freedom, state intervention, religion in politics, sexual morality and social welfare. Reproductive rights, that is rights relating to sexual reproduction and reproductive health, were first discussed as a subset of human rights at the United Nation's 1968 International Conference on Human Rights. Reproductive rights are not recognised in international human rights law and is an umbrella term that may include some or all of the following rights: the right to legal or safe abortion, the right to control one's reproductive functions, the right to access quality reproductive healthcare, and the right to education and access in order to make reproductive choices free from coercion, discrimination, and violence. Reproductive rights may also be understood to include education about contraception and sexually transmitted infections, and freedom from coerced sterilization and contraception, protection from gender-based practices such as female genital mutilation (FGM) and male genital mutilation (MGM). Reproductive rights are understood as rights of both men and women, but are most frequently advanced as women's rights.
Women's access to legal abortion is restricted by law in most countries in the world. Where abortion is permitted by law, women may only have limited access to safe abortion services. Some countries still prohibit abortion in all cases, but in many countries and jurisdictions, abortion is permitted to save the pregnant woman's life, or if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. According to Human Rights Watch, "Abortion is a highly emotional subject and one that excites deeply held opinions. However, equitable access to safe abortion services is first and foremost a human right. Where abortion is safe and legal, no one is forced to have one. Where abortion is illegal and unsafe, women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term or suffer serious health consequences and even death. Approximately 13% of maternal deaths worldwide are attributable to unsafe abortion—between 68,000 and 78,000 deaths annually." According to Human Rights Watch, "the denial of a pregnant woman's right to make an independent decision regarding abortion violates or poses a threat to a wide range of human rights." Other groups however, such as the Catholic Church, the Christian right and most Orthodox Jews, regard abortion not as a right but as a 'moral evil'.