61% of Young Republicans support gay marriage

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Obviously.  Lol at the people who voted 16-20 years in the poll about the Republican party being against gay marriage.  This issue is dying quickly. 

It's not dead yet and there are those who are stubbornly hoping for a recovery.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Someone's gotta volunteer to do the leg work, make the phone calls, man the offices, do constituent work, rack up favors, and wait around for a chance to run for something.

Thanks for reminding me that Pat Buchanan, Lee Atwater, and Karl Rove all started off as "Young Republicans."

So did Hillary.  She was even President of them on her college campus.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

I disagree first with the idea that sex is some frivolous thing that medical care should never attempt to facilitate.  Sex is one of the best parts of life.  It's not really something people see as optional or incidental to having a quality of life.  It's like saying someone with a severe knee injury who can barely walk doesn't need surgery because, after all, not being able to play lacrosse is just a frivolous non-medical problem.

But, you realize pregnancy is a major medical event?  And, also, women use contraceptives for non-shameful, shameful sex purposes.  Pain and menstrual cramps aren't medical issues?  Regulating your menstrual cycle isn't a medical concern?  Acne, endometriosis, etc? 

Pregnancy is a major event, but it is also a necessary one until our Brave New World develops artificial wombs.  As for alternative uses of contraceptives that are medicinal, then just as with ED treatments that are sometimes prescribed for medical uses, when they are indeed being prescribed as medicines then yes.  But I do not consider their use for the sole purpose of contraception to be a medical treatment.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

I disagree first with the idea that sex is some frivolous thing that medical care should never attempt to facilitate.  Sex is one of the best parts of life.  It's not really something people see as optional or incidental to having a quality of life.  It's like saying someone with a severe knee injury who can barely walk doesn't need surgery because, after all, not being able to play lacrosse is just a frivolous non-medical problem.

But, you realize pregnancy is a major medical event?  And, also, women use contraceptives for non-shameful, shameful sex purposes.  Pain and menstrual cramps aren't medical issues?  Regulating your menstrual cycle isn't a medical concern?  Acne, endometriosis, etc? 

Pregnancy is a major event, but it is also a necessary one until our Brave New World develops artificial wombs.  As for alternative uses of contraceptives that are medicinal, then just as with ED treatments that are sometimes prescribed for medical uses, when they are indeed being prescribed as medicines then yes.  But I do not consider their use for the sole purpose of contraception to be a medical treatment.

Hmm, I think it's up to the woman to decide whether she wants to be pregnant. 

Agreed, but I fail to see where that makes it society's obligation to reduce the cost to her to either decrease or increase the chances of that happening.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To repeat, in this situation is it medicine, Humpty Dumpty?

As long as we think of it as maternity leave instead of parental leave, we're not going to eliminate that disadvantage that women face in the workplace no matter how many other laws or regulation we enact.  Besides, considering the economics involved for the insurance company, let's step back and look at the real problem here.  We have employers serving as gateways between their employees and their insurance, which ideally they should have zero role in providing.  It's that third party in between that causes this issue to even arise in the first place.