61% of Young Republicans support gay marriage

[bedstuy]

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/10/61-of-young-republicans-favor-same-sex-marriage

18-29 year old Republicans and Republican-leaners support giving gays the right to marry.

What's interesting is that there's only a 16% difference from young Democrats, of which 77% support gay marriage, to young Republicans which shows how much of a generational issue it is.

This is somewhat skewed by the racial composition of each party though.  Black democrats are far more anti-gay marriage than white Democrats, and black Democrats far outnumber black Republicans. 

[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?

[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.

[bedstuy]

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? 

[bedstuy]

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. 

I guess I don't care whether medicine treats an illness or just a medically significant condition.  And what about the fairness argument.  A woman is at a disadvantage in the workplace compared to a man if she doesn't get the power to control her reproduction.  If something is necessary to have gender equality, why not just pay for it through an effective means of distributing medicine?