What will be the next big social issue?

[Crumpets]

Now that marriage equality seems to be settled law, at least for the foreseeable future, what will be the next big hot-button social issue? What will a few states or groups come to accept which is well out of the normal, or considered an enormous break from tradition, but which will gradually come to be accepted by the nation as a whole? Marijuana legalization fits this description in some ways, but it is usually considered a secondary issue at best, and is rarely if ever used as a wedge issue, especially not in the same manner as gay marriage circa 2004.

If I had to guess, I'd say legalization and regulation of prostitution or maybe even plural marriages (polygamy). I'm not sure what legal changes can be made to improve the lives of transsexual people, although such laws are certainly not far down the road at this point, at least the way things seem to be going.

[CountryClassSF]

But that can't be true, since those of us who said this will lead to polygamy legalization are just fearmongers.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Artificial intelligence will be a big one.

[The Mikado]

The same one that has been a big issue since the 18th century: immigration. As long as the US exists, immigration will be the big "social issue."

[Nutmeg]

I expect trans issues will become more prominent.

[Mehmentum]

Well, I'm convinced that abortion will always be an issue.  That isn't going away.  Race relations and gun control also seem to be here to stay.

Prostitution and Polygamy are both issues that may come up sometime in the not too distant future.  Perhaps a decade from now these would begin to enter mainstream public conversation. I could even envision incest eventually becoming a social issue, but that would be even further in the future still, if at all.

Its possible that drug legalization will also progress onto 'harder' drugs.

Technological progress will lead to additional social issues. Issues with cloning will probably come up.  We'll also probably be hearing about 'designer babies', and who knows what else.  I could also foresee issues dealing with Artificial Intelligence.

[Beet]

I have changed my view of polygamy to supportive. I think it's hard to argue against the idea of polygamy, and the biggest real problems with it are purely practical. But practical difficulties in living something out don't justify a blanket ban. Prostitution should definitely be decriminalized, if not legalized.

Transgender rights, prison reform and drug legalization are may be the next big issues that occupy us for a time before passing through a stage of acceptance. Animal rights may gain more prominence. Abortion doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Issues of race, gender, immigration (an appendage to race, sort of), and so on will always be with us.

[CountryClassSF]

I have changed my view of polygamy to supportive. I think it's hard to argue against the idea of polygamy, and the biggest real problems with it are purely practical. But practical difficulties in living something out don't justify a blanket ban. Prostitution should definitely be decriminalized, if not legalized.

Transgender rights, prison reform and drug legalization are may be the next big issues that occupy us for a time before passing through a stage of acceptance. Issues of race, gender, immigration (an appendage to race, sort of), and so on will always be with us.

At least it's consistent. Many SSM supporters get awfully angry when this topic is mentioned.

[The Free North]

Not sure, but whatever it is i'm sure it will turn nasty and get vastly blow out of proportion relative to its national importance on Atlas (and the internet in general).

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Maybe the disabled?

[afleitch]

Trans issues. They are being set up to fill the negro, irish, women, feminist, single mother, teenage deliquent, gay shaped hole in the religious right.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Trans issues. They are being set up to fill the negro, irish, women, feminist, single mother, teenage deliquent, gay shaped hole in the religious right.

yes, the right-wing push for vicious anti-trans laws has already started.

[WVdemocrat]

Hoverboards.

TBH I could see race relations becoming the next big social issue. It's received a lot of press in recent months due to the highly publicized police shootings and riots and so on.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I have changed my view of polygamy to supportive. I think it's hard to argue against the idea of polygamy, and the biggest real problems with it are purely practical. But practical difficulties in living something out don't justify a blanket ban. Prostitution should definitely be decriminalized, if not legalized.

Transgender rights, prison reform and drug legalization are may be the next big issues that occupy us for a time before passing through a stage of acceptance. Issues of race, gender, immigration (an appendage to race, sort of), and so on will always be with us.

At least it's consistent. Many SSM supporters get awfully angry when this topic is mentioned.

Do you understand Beet's (fortunately fringe) position as necessary in order to be consistent? Because the increasingly prevalent opinion that I've encountered (and which I hold) is that limitation to two partners is qualitatively more important to the institution of marriage in our society, in societies similar to or derived from ours, and in the expected and hoped-for future of our society than is the question of the partners' sexes, and thus it's not inconsistent to put stock in the former but not in the latter.

[Crumpets]

Trans issues. They are being set up to fill the negro, irish, women, feminist, single mother, teenage deliquent, gay shaped hole in the religious right.

yes, the right-wing push for vicious anti-trans laws has already started.

Just curious, what do you see as concrete legislative proposals/reforms that could improve the standing of trans people in America? As far as I can tell, apart from bathroom labels and non-discrimination clauses (which, let's be honest, probably won't do anything to fix most of the problems trans people face), there aren't many clear fixes I can see. Most of the issues in the trans community are ones of hate crimes and abuse, just like racial minorities have faced for ages, and aren't closely tied to legislation.

[Beet]

I have changed my view of polygamy to supportive. I think it's hard to argue against the idea of polygamy, and the biggest real problems with it are purely practical. But practical difficulties in living something out don't justify a blanket ban. Prostitution should definitely be decriminalized, if not legalized.

Transgender rights, prison reform and drug legalization are may be the next big issues that occupy us for a time before passing through a stage of acceptance. Issues of race, gender, immigration (an appendage to race, sort of), and so on will always be with us.

At least it's consistent. Many SSM supporters get awfully angry when this topic is mentioned.

Do you understand Beet's (fortunately fringe) position as necessary in order to be consistent? Because the increasingly prevalent opinion that I've encountered (and which I hold) is that limitation to two partners is qualitatively more important to the institution of marriage in our society, in societies similar to or derived from ours, and in the expected and hoped-for future of our society than is the question of the partners' sexes, and thus it's not inconsistent to put stock in the former but not in the latter.

Which I acknowledged 11 years ago, when I already took the 'consistent' pro-SSM position that you praise here, a very narrowly tailored pro-SSM position that avoided any slippery slopes. And that remains a perfectly consistent position, yes.

But over time, the predominant pro-SSM position evolved to a simpler one, by Occam's razor superior, which was "If it harms no one, then why not?" Basically, if society thinks the harms of denying something (in this case, recognition of SSM) is greater than the harms of allowing it (apparently nothing more than the mental anguish of anti-SSM conservatives) then it will be supported.

All the polygamists need to do is point to one healthy, loving and working polygamist family who isn't hurt anyone, but is being hurt by lack of legal recognition, and ask "why not?" to build a very strong case for themselves.

[CountryClassSF]

Do you understand Beet's (fortunately fringe) position as necessary in order to be consistent? Because the increasingly prevalent opinion that I've encountered (and which I hold) is that limitation to two partners is qualitatively more important to the institution of marriage in our society, in societies similar to or derived from ours, and in the expected and hoped-for future of our society than is the question of the partners' sexes, and thus it's not inconsistent to put stock in the former but not in the latter.

No no, I think you can legitimately be for adding gays to the definition of marriage and not support polygamy.  But to be consistent, you would have to oppose the whole "right to marry who you love" meme. If one takes the position that marriage isn't a right, but wants to include gay couples within that institution, i.e. add to the definition --- but opposes polygamy, then no, there's no inconsistency

[Famous Mortimer]

The same one that has been a big issue since the 18th century: immigration. As long as the US exists, immigration will be the big "social issue."

Immigration won't become any more significant than it is now because the business interests that control both parties already take the liberal position.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Re-educating those religious individuals among us who spread bigotry and hate.

[Likely Voter]

Well the fight for gay rights isn't over yet. With DADT, DOMA and now state marriage bans over with, the government seems to be out of the discrimination game. So the fight moves to the private sector with both Federal and state ENDA fight and RFRAs. Until it is illegal for businesses to refuse services to LGBT and discriminate for jobs, housing, etc. the fight isn't over. It will be interesting to see if Obergefell can be used as precedent to make gays a 'protected class.'

[Ebsy]

Assisted suicide.

[DC Al Fine]

Let's see here:

Abortion, Gun Control are incumbents on the scene, so I wouldn't count them as next issues even if they flare up in the next 5-10 years.

Marijuana will gradually win out politically. I don't seeing it being a massive, divides the country issue. Ditto for the remainder gay rights.

While I do think polygamy will eventually become a contentious issue, it's not supported enough now to become the next big thing. Even if polygamy enjoys SSM's meteoric rise, it would still be decades away from being a major issue.

With all that in mind, I'd guess euthanasia will be the next big social issue.

[TDAS04]

Assisted suicide.

Probably this.

[eric82oslo]

The two next big social issues will most unquestionably be the death penalty and gun control, without any doubt whatsoever. Just give it a little bit of time to mature, as with marriage equality. And maybe these issues won't need 50 years either, but rather some 11-19 or something. Future history writing usually do surprise us, especially so in this modern day of robotics and self-driving cars.

Okey, there are obviously more than just these two issues which are gonna be huge in the years going forward. Marihuana legalization and the end to mass incarceration are certainly gonna be just as important and epoque changing.

[SteveRogers]

It will be interesting to see if Obergefell can be used as precedent to make gays a 'protected class.'

I don't know that Obergfell itself can be considering that Kennedy went out of his way to avoid doing an actual equal protection analysis in the opinion. That's my only real gripe with today's opinion.