Marriage Now Fabulous, SCOTUS Rules for Same Sex Marriage

[Stellonia]

The only difference is that there is nothing close to anyone eating anyone else. I don't see a connection between gay marriage and carnivorous wolves.

Analogies will be analogies.

The Relation to Carnivorous Wolves rides upon that they aren't related to Wolves at all. The whole 'Wolves and Sheep thing' demonstrates how putting Gay Marriage up to Popular Vote is an absolutely shitty idea. The wolves, in this case, are the Homophobes, while the sheep are the Homosexuals.

Do you understand it now?

This is not about banning homosexuality. This is about legalizing gay marriage.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Analogies will be analogies.

The Relation to Carnivorous Wolves rides upon that they aren't related to Wolves at all. The whole 'Wolves and Sheep thing' demonstrates how putting Gay Marriage up to Popular Vote is an absolutely shitty idea. The wolves, in this case, are the Homophobes, while the sheep are the Homosexuals.

Do you understand it now?

This is not about banning homosexuality. This is about legalizing gay marriage.

This is about infringing upon other people's rights.

[Benuty]

Analogies will be analogies.

The Relation to Carnivorous Wolves rides upon that they aren't related to Wolves at all. The whole 'Wolves and Sheep thing' demonstrates how putting Gay Marriage up to Popular Vote is an absolutely shitty idea. The wolves, in this case, are the Homophobes, while the sheep are the Homosexuals.

Do you understand it now?

Isn't it a little gay that the homophobes want to "eat" the gays?

Given most of them view it as a phase, or worse would it really be?

[The Rich Port]

What the majority of wolves don't get to decide. States Rights and all that.

Do you oppose all democracy, because you sound like you do?

This is a representative republic we live in, sir, not a democracy.

You have a problem with that, take it up with the Founding Fathers.

[Neutraligon]

What the majority of wolves don't get to decide. States Rights and all that.

Do you oppose all democracy, because you sound like you do?

Depends, do I oppose democracy that does not have protections for the minority...yes.

[Benuty]

The only difference is that there is nothing close to anyone eating anyone else. I don't see a connection between gay marriage and carnivorous wolves.

What the majority of wolves don't get to decide. States Rights and all that.

The problem with having a majority wolf population is that they will starve or potentially cannibalize. So in the end, who really wins?

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

Letting the entire population vote on the rights of 5% of the populations is like letting a group of 95 wolves and 5 sheep vote on who they should eat for dinner.

The only difference is that there is nothing close to anyone eating anyone else. I don't see a connection between gay marriage and carnivorous wolves.

Well, a one-sentence analogy isn't a perfect 1:1 way of explaining a complex real-world system of running a nation, so there's that. The point was that if everything was up for a referendum then minorities would, by definition, always get the short end of the stick. The analogy is a better way of explaining why we don't have a direct democracy in general.

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

What the majority of wolves don't get to decide. States Rights and all that.

The problem with having a majority wolf population is that they will starve or potentially cannibalize. So in the end, who really wins?

The taxidermist.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

What the majority of wolves don't get to decide. States Rights and all that.

The problem with having a majority wolf population is that they will starve or potentially cannibalize. So in the end, who really wins?

Death will have his due.

[Benuty]

The problem with having a majority wolf population is that they will starve or potentially cannibalize. So in the end, who really wins?

The taxidermist.

Alright I will give you that.

[Stellonia]

This is not about banning homosexuality. This is about legalizing gay marriage.

This is about infringing upon other people's rights.

Ah, yes. Are you aware that there is a difference between entitlement to government services and liberty from government interference?

[Grenartia]

Considering that most polling data shows the majority of Americans support same-sex marriage I don't think we have anything to worry about.

but what about the states that do have a majority of the population that disapproves of gay marriage,do we just say f em

Since when did they get to have a say in what rights I get to enjoy?

[New Jordslag]

The problem with having a majority wolf population is that they will starve or potentially cannibalize. So in the end, who really wins?

The taxidermist.

Hmm. Was the Taxidermist gay?

Analogies will be analogies.

The Relation to Carnivorous Wolves rides upon that they aren't related to Wolves at all. The whole 'Wolves and Sheep thing' demonstrates how putting Gay Marriage up to Popular Vote is an absolutely shitty idea. The wolves, in this case, are the Homophobes, while the sheep are the Homosexuals.

Do you understand it now?

This is not about banning homosexuality. This is about legalizing gay marriage.

Oh, I'd very much say that the people crying out for Gay Marriage to be banned wouldn't mind all that much if Homosexuality itself was banned.

But you know what? I took the time to write an entire paragraph to explain what the analogy was to you. You missed the point of the analogy again.

Like I said: The Eating represents a Hypothetical Popular Vote to ban Gay Marriage, which, as you pointed out, this whole thing is about. The Wolves are the Homophobes. The Sheep are the gays. There is a vote between the group of Sheep and Wolves who to eat next. Who do you think would win?

You see? It was completely about Gay Marriage all along.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

This is about infringing upon other people's rights.

Ah, yes. Are you aware that there is a difference between entitlement to government services and liberty from government interference?

Yeah, why?

[Grenartia]

Those sound like them thar french words.

We don't tolerate those cheese eating surrender monkeys using words in our country. I will modify them to be proper freedom-based words. libarty, egglite, frathouse. That's what we believe in in these parts.

Nawlins wants a word with you.

Only tourists and people who pander to them call it "Nawlins". Its just New Orleans.

[The Rich Port]

This is about infringing upon other people's rights.

Ah, yes. Are you aware that there is a difference between entitlement to government services and liberty from government interference?

Yes, and this is about protecting homosexuals from state government interference.

[Geanna]

Letting the entire population vote on the rights of 5% of the populations is like letting a group of 95 wolves and 5 sheep vote on who they should eat for dinner.

The only difference is that there is nothing close to anyone eating anyone else. I don't see a connection between gay marriage and carnivorous wolves.

Surely you don't have that much difficulty in using context clues and abstract reasoning to understand an analogy...

[The Union of the West]

Letting the entire population vote on the rights of 5% of the populations is like letting a group of 95 wolves and 5 sheep vote on who they should eat for dinner.

I don't think that's a very good analogy. It operates under the assumption that 95% (or even a majority, for that matter) would vote to take away the rights of the LGBT+ community.

I mean, I get what you're saying and I agree with you. But I don't think its a very good analogy.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

It's the removal of prohibitions, not the imposition of them. CM has the right idea.

This is the kind of thing that should be handled by the police, and if worst comes to worst, the military. Two groups of killers fighting in the streets is hardly a solution.

Though of course, I respect anyone's right to use force to the extent that it is necessary to defend themselves from an immediate threat.

What do you do when many among the police take the KKK's side? Victims of police killings are disproportionately black.

What the hell is the KKK, if not the definition of an immediate threat?

[Neutraligon]

Letting the entire population vote on the rights of 5% of the populations is like letting a group of 95 wolves and 5 sheep vote on who they should eat for dinner.

I don't think that's a very good analogy. It operates under the assumption that 95% (or even a majority, for that matter) would vote to take away the rights of the LGBT+ community.

I mean, I get what you're saying and I agree with you. But I don't think its a very good analogy.

In this case it was a majority in certain states who voted in the past. It does not matter at what percentage they vote though. even if it where 50.1% the analogy still holds.

[New Jordslag]

Letting the entire population vote on the rights of 5% of the populations is like letting a group of 95 wolves and 5 sheep vote on who they should eat for dinner.

I don't think that's a very good analogy. It operates under the assumption that 95% (or even a majority, for that matter) would vote to take away the rights of the LGBT+ community.

I mean, I get what you're saying and I agree with you. But I don't think its a very good analogy.

It's 95% in any given Fundie Christian state. Probably more.

[The Union of the West]

I don't think that's a very good analogy. It operates under the assumption that 95% (or even a majority, for that matter) would vote to take away the rights of the LGBT+ community.

I mean, I get what you're saying and I agree with you. But I don't think its a very good analogy.

In this case it was a majority in certain states who voted in the past. It does not matter at what percentage they vote though. even if it where 50.1% the analogy still holds.

My mistake, I was thinking nationwide.

[Benuty]

It's the removal of prohibitions, not the imposition of them. CM has the right idea.



What do you do when many among the police take the KKK's side? Victims of police killings are disproportionately black.

What the hell is the KKK, if not the definition of an immediate threat?

An immediate albeit very disorganized state given there is no major Imperial Wizard figure like there was in the mid 20th century. So basically its a bunch of groups claiming to be the Klan when they are merely fragments without claim.

[Middle Pacific]

I don't think that's a very good analogy. It operates under the assumption that 95% (or even a majority, for that matter) would vote to take away the rights of the LGBT+ community.

I mean, I get what you're saying and I agree with you. But I don't think its a very good analogy.

It's 95% in any given Fundie Christian state. Probably more.

Interestingly, despite what it may seem like due to protestations of a given conservative state's right-wing politicians, quite a few of these now support marriage equality anyway.

For example, a 2014 poll showed that Texans marginally support marriage equality 48% to 47%.

http://www.newswise.com/articles/texas-tech-survey-abbott-to-win-texas-governor-voter-id-law-didn-t-cause-problems-and-texans-split-on-gay-marriage

[The Empire of Pretantia]

What the hell is the KKK, if not the definition of an immediate threat?

An immediate albeit very disorganized state given there is no major Imperial Wizard figure like there was in the mid 20th century. So basically its a bunch of groups claiming to be the Klan when they are merely fragments without claim.

I want to be an Imperial Wizard.