61% of Young Republicans support gay marriage

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It really is game over on this issue. In 10-20 years, it'll not only be a fact of life, there won't be any significant organized opposition.

Depends on what you mean by significant.  It certainly does not look likely to be effective by then, but there is a possibility that the fundamentalist wing of the GOP could still be clinging to this issue and dragging the party down with it.

[badgate]

How many young people vote in Republican primaries though.

[hopper]

I think there will be a split in the National Republican Party about SSM in 20 years. Some will endorse it some won't. I do think in about 10 years Republicans in the Northeast will be all mostly pro-SSM.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I think there will be a split in the National Republican Party about SSM in 20 years. Some will endorse it some won't.

If it takes 20 years that doesn't spell good things on election days into the future.

[Randy Bobandy]

Hmm. The GOP just might survive into the 2020s.

[hopper]

I think there will be a split in the National Republican Party about SSM in 20 years. Some will endorse it some won't.

If it takes 20 years that doesn't spell good things on election days into the future.

Its one issue.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I think there will be a split in the National Republican Party about SSM in 20 years. Some will endorse it some won't.

If it takes 20 years that doesn't spell good things on election days into the future.

Its one issue.

One additional issue that's not going to help their image, now or into the future.

And lets not forget, hooper, that the Republicans need to modify their neanderthal approach towards women and women's issues.

[Torie]

No the issue will be dead in a few years, because it will be clear to everyone that SSM is the law of the land - everywhere - and that public opinion is against changing that, so it's a dead horse. I mean how much action is there about prohibiting the sale of condoms these days? 

[AggregateDemand]

Hmm. The GOP just might survive into the 2020s.

When the GOP let go of legislative malice towards homosexuals and marijuana users, the party will start to hit its stride again.

Without unwarranted fear of racism, sexism, homophobia, and corporate take-over of the Federal government, the Democratic Party would not exist. Democrats are well aware of the situation, hence they never stop making false allegations.

Brilliant political tactics, but I question the impact its having on our society.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No the issue will be dead in a few years, because it will be clear to everyone that SSM is the law of the land - everywhere - and that public opinion is against changing that, so it's a dead horse. I mean how much action is there about prohibiting the sale of condoms these days? 

So you think it would be a Fluke if it turned out that SSM was more controversial in a few years than contraception is now?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Liberal intellectuals were proclaiming that the Right was basically dead in the 1950s, and would cease to be relevant. 

[Cassius]

Liberal intellectuals were proclaiming that the Right was basically dead in the 1950s, and would cease to be relevant. 

People who follow politics (in fact people generally) are rather prone to hubris if they think they've notched up a succession of 'victories' in a row (as Democrats seem to be doing with gay marriage, the minimum wage and marijuana).

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Hmm. The GOP just might survive into the 2020s.

When the GOP let go of legislative malice towards homosexuals and marijuana users, the party will start to hit its stride again.

The GOP might want to get rid of it's regular, everyday malice first.

[AggregateDemand]

The GOP might want to get rid of it's regular, everyday malice first.

Malice towards the worst welfare state in the developed world?

American Democrats: never in the course of human history have so many people achieved so little with so much

[Nutmeg]

Without unwarranted fear of racism, sexism, homophobia

I can't really speak to the first two, but you my fear of the third one is not unwarranted. The hostility to my very existence that I've experienced at fairly regular intervals my whole life, but less so more recently, is quite real, I assure you.

[hopper]

Hmm. The GOP just might survive into the 2020s.

When the GOP let go of legislative malice towards homosexuals and marijuana users, the party will start to hit its stride again.

Without unwarranted fear of racism, sexism, homophobia, and corporate take-over of the Federal government, the Democratic Party would not exist. Democrats are well aware of the situation, hence they never stop making false allegations.

Brilliant political tactics, but I question the impact its having on our society.

The GOP has been pretty silent on the issue of legalization of marijuana unlike gay marriage which they don't support.

[hopper]

I think there will be a split in the National Republican Party about SSM in 20 years. Some will endorse it some won't.

If it takes 20 years that doesn't spell good things on election days into the future.

Its one issue.

One additional issue that's not going to help their image, now or into the future.

And lets not forget, hooper, that the Republicans need to modify their neanderthal approach towards women and women's issues.

Well yeah when you put it like that one additional issue that is not gonna help their image.

Well yeah the Republicans need to take a better rhetorical approach to the issue of abortion. Even Conservative Women at C-Pac on one of the panels were angry at Republican Male Candidates talk about the issue like using the word "rape" like Akin and Murdock did in 2012.

[AggregateDemand]

The GOP has been pretty silent on the issue of legalization of marijuana unlike gay marriage which they don't support.

True. The party has remained silent, but the legalization polls and the prohibition advocacy groups are speaking for Republicans, whether they like it or not.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The GOP might want to get rid of it's regular, everyday malice first.

Malice towards the worst welfare state in the developed world?

Malice towards gays. Or, as you so eloquently put it, "homosexuals."

[Torie]

No the issue will be dead in a few years, because it will be clear to everyone that SSM is the law of the land - everywhere - and that public opinion is against changing that, so it's a dead horse. I mean how much action is there about prohibiting the sale of condoms these days? 

So you think it would be a Fluke if it turned out that SSM was more controversial in a few years than contraception is now?

Haha. Contraception is not controversial either in the public square (e.g., something like 95% of Catholics and Fundamentalists use it) above and beyond the notion that is should be singled out as a medical service for which it is illegal unlike most other medical services, to levy a co-pay.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No the issue will be dead in a few years, because it will be clear to everyone that SSM is the law of the land - everywhere - and that public opinion is against changing that, so it's a dead horse. I mean how much action is there about prohibiting the sale of condoms these days? 

So you think it would be a Fluke if it turned out that SSM was more controversial in a few years than contraception is now?

Haha. Contraception is not controversial either in the public square (e.g., something like 95% of Catholics and Fundamentalists use it) above and beyond the notion that is should be singled out as a medical service for which it is illegal unlike most other medical services, to levy a co-pay.

Is contraception a medical service?  After all, save for those few people for whom pregnancy is expected to cause life-threatening complications, pregnancy is a not a disease that needs to be prevented for health reasons.  That argues for generally treating contraception as a lifestyle choice much the same as cosmetic surgery.

[bedstuy]

No the issue will be dead in a few years, because it will be clear to everyone that SSM is the law of the land - everywhere - and that public opinion is against changing that, so it's a dead horse. I mean how much action is there about prohibiting the sale of condoms these days? 

So you think it would be a Fluke if it turned out that SSM was more controversial in a few years than contraception is now?

Haha. Contraception is not controversial either in the public square (e.g., something like 95% of Catholics and Fundamentalists use it) above and beyond the notion that is should be singled out as a medical service for which it is illegal unlike most other medical services, to levy a co-pay.

Is contraception a medical service?  After all, save for those few people for whom pregnancy is expected to cause life-threatening complications, pregnancy is a not a disease that needs to be prevented for health reasons.  That argues for generally treating contraception as a lifestyle choice much the same as cosmetic surgery.

You're not being serious, right?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No the issue will be dead in a few years, because it will be clear to everyone that SSM is the law of the land - everywhere - and that public opinion is against changing that, so it's a dead horse. I mean how much action is there about prohibiting the sale of condoms these days? 

So you think it would be a Fluke if it turned out that SSM was more controversial in a few years than contraception is now?

Haha. Contraception is not controversial either in the public square (e.g., something like 95% of Catholics and Fundamentalists use it) above and beyond the notion that is should be singled out as a medical service for which it is illegal unlike most other medical services, to levy a co-pay.

Is contraception a medical service?  After all, save for those few people for whom pregnancy is expected to cause life-threatening complications, pregnancy is a not a disease that needs to be prevented for health reasons.  That argues for generally treating contraception as a lifestyle choice much the same as cosmetic surgery.

Are you being serious, right?

To a degree.  The idea that insurance will cover everything and no one has to worry about costs has been a major contributor in the past to high health care inflation.  Altho in reality, from a cost standpoint, providing free contraception saves insurers money because of the costs of pre-natal and neo-natal care.  Indeed, on an actuarial basis, it might even make financial sense for insurers to pay people to use contraceptives and/or be sterilized, tho I would hope that save for a few of our yellow avatars, no one here would think that would think that would be a good idea.

Still, the idea that pregnancy is a disease is one I find repulsive, hence I don't want it being treated as if were a disease.

[bedstuy]

No the issue will be dead in a few years, because it will be clear to everyone that SSM is the law of the land - everywhere - and that public opinion is against changing that, so it's a dead horse. I mean how much action is there about prohibiting the sale of condoms these days? 

So you think it would be a Fluke if it turned out that SSM was more controversial in a few years than contraception is now?

Haha. Contraception is not controversial either in the public square (e.g., something like 95% of Catholics and Fundamentalists use it) above and beyond the notion that is should be singled out as a medical service for which it is illegal unlike most other medical services, to levy a co-pay.

Is contraception a medical service?  After all, save for those few people for whom pregnancy is expected to cause life-threatening complications, pregnancy is a not a disease that needs to be prevented for health reasons.  That argues for generally treating contraception as a lifestyle choice much the same as cosmetic surgery.

Are you being serious, right?

To a degree.  The idea that insurance will cover everything and no one has to worry about costs has been a major contributor in the past to high health care inflation.  Altho in reality, from a cost standpoint, providing free contraception saves insurers money because of the costs of pre-natal and neo-natal care.  Indeed, on an actuarial basis, it might even make financial sense for insurers to pay people to use contraceptives and/or be sterilized, tho I would hope that save for a few of our yellow avatars, no one here would think that would think that would be a good idea.

Still, the idea that pregnancy is a disease is one I find repulsive, hence I don't want it being treated as if were a disease.

Pregnancy isn't a disease, but it raises a specific set of medical issues.  I don't really understand the problem.  But, it's absolutely a matter of fairness that women can have a similar ability as men to manage their reproductive health.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No the issue will be dead in a few years, because it will be clear to everyone that SSM is the law of the land - everywhere - and that public opinion is against changing that, so it's a dead horse. I mean how much action is there about prohibiting the sale of condoms these days? 

So you think it would be a Fluke if it turned out that SSM was more controversial in a few years than contraception is now?

Haha. Contraception is not controversial either in the public square (e.g., something like 95% of Catholics and Fundamentalists use it) above and beyond the notion that is should be singled out as a medical service for which it is illegal unlike most other medical services, to levy a co-pay.

Is contraception a medical service?  After all, save for those few people for whom pregnancy is expected to cause life-threatening complications, pregnancy is a not a disease that needs to be prevented for health reasons.  That argues for generally treating contraception as a lifestyle choice much the same as cosmetic surgery.

Are you being serious, right?

To a degree.  The idea that insurance will cover everything and no one has to worry about costs has been a major contributor in the past to high health care inflation.  Altho in reality, from a cost standpoint, providing free contraception saves insurers money because of the costs of pre-natal and neo-natal care.  Indeed, on an actuarial basis, it might even make financial sense for insurers to pay people to use contraceptives and/or be sterilized, tho I would hope that save for a few of our yellow avatars, no one here would think that would think that would be a good idea.

Still, the idea that pregnancy is a disease is one I find repulsive, hence I don't want it being treated as if were a disease.

Pregnancy isn't a disease, but it raises a specific set of medical issues.  I don't really understand the problem.  But, it's absolutely a matter of fairness that women can have a similar ability as men to manage their reproductive health.

Well, I'm also opposed to having medical insurance be required to pay for ED treatments.