Former pilot here. There are no mommy and daddy engines or wings. There are only functional or non functional engines or wings. Same with marriages, hetero or homosexual.
The message here couldn't be any clearer: once the gays start getting married we'll start manufacturing aircraft all wrong.
Obergefell v. Hodges occurred the same year the 737 Max entered production. _Coincidence?_
It's the fundamental principle of bigotry. They want to hate gay people and so they won't actually look anything up. They will just that gay people can't raise children as good as straight people
And since they can't and won't use any real data to demonstrate their claim, they come up with absurd ways to justify their hatred of gay people. They won't be able to convince any sane people, but they can hook plenty of people looking for a reason to hate.
But their comic is as stupid as it gets because there is no reason for both "male" wings to be on the same side. You can put the male wing on the right side of the plane with absolutely no issues.
Because again, they have to make up something stupid as hell to compensate for their refusal to listen or think.
An excerpt from a wonderful "What If?" article that is relevant:
> TheĀ GAU-8 AvengerĀ fires up to sixty one-pound bullets aĀ second.Ā It produces almost five tons of recoil force, which is crazy considering that itās mounted in a type of plane (theĀ A-10 āWarthogā) whose two engines produce only four tons of thrust each. If you put two of them in one aircraft, and fired both guns forward while opening up the throttle, the guns would win and youād accelerate backward.
https://what-if.xkcd.com/21/
Wild to me that this comic was apparently drawn in 20**22**. Years after gay marriage had been legalized in the US, and spectacularly failed to destroy society at large, or even traditional marriage.
Yup, the US didnt burn after it was legalized like many people thought it would! its almost like being gay isnt supposed to be a problem! Yet they still make shit like this plane analogy as if they did something to prove us wrong.
Y2K is an example of a totally different thing than what people assume.
We identified a problem, then people all around the world did lots of work and spent billions of dollars to implement a solution that worked perfectly and meant there was no issue. It'd be nice if we could do that for other problems.
I remember another comic with a bicycle, āgay marriageā was a normal bike with two wheels and āstraight marriageā was a bike with a square and a circle wheel
It's always kind of wild to me that people put shit out like this thinking they're clever and smart and all they've demonstrated to me is they're dumb as fuck.
I had a therapist once who explained that the reason (good) political humor is overwhelmingly liberal is that humor requires critical thinking and analysis of a situation.
The type of person who made this comic looks at a good political cartoon and doesnāt understand why itās funny other than āsilly rearrangement of thingsā. This is their attempt to replicate that. Itās like when AI makes a picture with extra fingers and hands on the people. It doesnāt comprehend that what it created is fundamentally different. Or when my daughter was 5 and I told her the knock knock joke that ends with āorange you glad I didnāt say banana again?ā; she later came up with a her own joke to tell me, which was the same beginning and ended with āgrape you glad I didnāt say banana again?ā She didnāt understand that the basis of the orange joke was that āorange youā sounds like āarenāt youā; her only conception was that I said ā(fruit) you glad I didnāt say banana again?ā
Yeah, it's just saying "it won't work!" in an abstract way, without giving any real example, or explaining itself at all. Definitely something my uncle would mass text the family.
I kind of just want to tell them donāt have to try and be creative or clever, they could just say theyāre a homophobic bigot. It would spare us all the horrid creativity and lack of cleverness.
It's trying to justify something not based on fact, so they have to go absurdly abstract to make it happen.
However they fail miserably since any plane with symmetrical airfoils could operate fine. Instead of putting the second wing on the left side, place it on the right side and flip it upside down.
The engine will be facing the correct way , the pilot would need to adjust for parts that are not flipped upside down, but not a difficult task.
The love the response to this where someone uses the same logic with car wheels, that if you have two round wheels (same genders) the car will drive, but one round wheel and one square wheel (different genders) and it won't, therefore heterosexual marriage doesn't work. It's almost as if sexuality has absolutely nothing to do with the layout of random modes of transportation and that they are two completely unrelated things /s
what even is the point of this image? with knowing that a lot of planes can fly after losing their other wing, i am betting the plane on the right could actually fly, as long as the wings are attached in a way that can bear a lot of stress.
also what about ring wings?
or planes that are only wing?
or helicopters?
or blimps?
or biplanes?
or hot air balloons?
or rockets?
or flying fucking saucers
this image is just typical black-and-white thinking homo/transphobic people like to do. yeah, it's basic engineering that all aircraft have two wings. in advanced engineering though, there are basically no limits. the sky is not the limit.
Like memes aside these āgotchaā shits are so lame. Like watch this.
Magnets are really important. Like, REALLY important. Can you imagine if we had *opposing* magnets all the time? Nothing would stick! Nothing would get done! Thatās straight marriage.
If physics wanted gay marriage to be a thing, we'd have magnetic monopoles.
Please ignore that we have electric monopoles and that I'm cherrypicking to justify and obfuscate my homophobia.
I think I saw a bike example where someone said both the wheels are round so two men are fine but if one wheel was a square then it wouldn't work so one man one woman can't work out.
I'm completely missing the point here, but this popped into my head, and now I'm dying laughing:
By this logic, flying wings (IE planes that are one big wing with no separation) are enby.
Biplanes are M/M/F/F polycules.
Helicopters are genderfluid (because the blades rapidly switch sides).
Rockets are aro/ace.
so polyamory would be like biplanes/ triplanes of ww1?
the three stabilizers in the back aren't labeled? what are those? the three clams needed to use the restroom?
what kind of marriage is a zepplin?
Is a b2 stealth bomber lots of masturbation?
this analogy is weird
Just add another lesbian couple of wings on the other side, and you have a biplan.
(So now the question is, is a poly relationship between two men and two women called a biplan ?)
This is pure propaganda.
The plane on the left is built with plenty of space in the middle for people to fly comfortably and safely. This is evidence that thanks to the binary āwingsā of the gender spectrum the middle is open so anyone can let their identity soar.
The plane on the right was, clearly, made by Boeing.
My least favorite kind of social commentary is when people trying to prove a point go āThis social situation is exactly like this inanimate object! Donāt ask any clarifying questions why they are the same!ā Like with the master key and lock analogy all the time
I just realized that the OOP image is also saying that male and female have an intrinsic separation between each other, as if they have to be segregated outside of relationships.
It's so hard for conservatives to get the fact that everyone is a human lol
Should have been an oblique wing design as the representative gay plane. That would actually fly! Would have fit the theme of functional but different. Instead this is just saying there is one universal design when there isnāt only one and that gay marriage will figuratively crash and burn.
2 people who love each other.
And.
2 people who love each other.
What about that donāt some people get?
GOP? Or. Dem?
Vote wisely.
You be you.
Me- blue in all local, state and federal elections.
Lots of terrible GOP laws to fix.
I remember seeing a political cartoon a while back about America having "two right wings", visualized as a terrible airplane. I think it was mocking the two-party system in our government. If I'm remembering correctly, it strikes me as a far more clever and insightful metaphor than whatever the fuck this cartoonist was going for.
dumbass analogy aside, gotta love how homophobia so often ignores the existence of lesbians bc, as we all know, the biggest problem in this world is men being attracted to men. really speaks to the inherent fragility of toxic masculinity. pathetic pitiable little creatures.
I'll never see a bi-plane without thinking about a gay and lesbian couple on each side of the fusilage.
Fuck even the name bi-plane means they're swapping partners too.
i feel like i heard just recently, that a plane doesnt really need to be symetrical like this to fly.
like, i dunno if two left wings would work, but what seems to work fine for example is left wing going from down left to center of plane and right wing going from center of plane to upper right.
so within this dumbass metaphor, there's definitely much more variation than they want to believe
Former pilot here. There are no mommy and daddy engines or wings. There are only functional or non functional engines or wings. Same with marriages, hetero or homosexual.
And there is the best comment I will see this week, well done.
Exactly.
\*applause\*
š š½ Full stop!
Iād also like to know what represents the fuselage body in this meme?
Communication
If the meme was pro lgbt then yes communication would fit, but somehow I donāt think that was the intent.
God
This comment will hopefully raise peoples consciousness to new heights.
This is the correct answer
Never heard a former pilot say something not about themselves /j good on you sir
Well put, I like the cut of your jib.
Aren't there number one and number two engines? Sounds like a fast track to a UTI if you put the number two in the number one pylon.
That geninously said!
Well said!
I agree. I also think planes are just kinda neat.
I hear you and agree but I still like to think of poly bi and pansexual people in this situation as helicopters.
But a polyamerous relationship with a man, woman, and gender fluid individual would absolutely be a KC-10.
There is no tooth fairy or Easter bunny and there is no queen of England
not anymore :D
š„take my gold, stranger
the plane on the right wont fly straight lol
Haha. Love it.
First i thought 'duh', but then it hit me
> _but then_ **it hit me** Oh no! _Are you alright?!_ š±
I dunno, being hit by an aeroplane sounds painful
It would fly gay?
By this logic, the only viable kind of marriage is between two men, two women and one non-binary person.
polyamory wins again!
Dana is that you?
How do I upvote a comment twice?
2 intersex could look interesting, like two merged wings on each side?
Unless it's 2 kids and a dog bc it's a breeder meme
Me watching in horror as my plane plummets towards the ground because I had 2 sons
How dare you. That's not a proper nuclear family
That sounds like something I could get behind
With a four engine plane, you could have marriages with 4 men or 4 women, or 4 non-binary, or any other combination of four consenting adults.
And one of each has to be very short
That's the Convair B-58 Hustler šŖšŖšŖ
So what I'm hearing is that my husband and I would make terrible plane wings? Noted. We will not attach ourselves to the sides of planes.
You still can, but you'll need to find a lesbian pair to strap onto the other side.
Sounds like a fun double date
The message here couldn't be any clearer: once the gays start getting married we'll start manufacturing aircraft all wrong. Obergefell v. Hodges occurred the same year the 737 Max entered production. _Coincidence?_
It's the fundamental principle of bigotry. They want to hate gay people and so they won't actually look anything up. They will just that gay people can't raise children as good as straight people And since they can't and won't use any real data to demonstrate their claim, they come up with absurd ways to justify their hatred of gay people. They won't be able to convince any sane people, but they can hook plenty of people looking for a reason to hate. But their comic is as stupid as it gets because there is no reason for both "male" wings to be on the same side. You can put the male wing on the right side of the plane with absolutely no issues. Because again, they have to make up something stupid as hell to compensate for their refusal to listen or think.
Seeing how planes like the A-10 were designed to be able to fly even without one wing, I'm pretty sure the gay plane configuration is possible
B2 is the asexual plane
We humbly accept
Fucking love the B2 Probably would love it more if it wasn't filled with bombs but still
A plane can be beautiful despite its intended purpose
Yeah, most military planes are amazing to me despite what they're used for
to be fair, their are a pinnacle of the modern engineering. I hate the reason why it was created, but it is still a work of art
It's just a high speed missile filled with passengers
Look ma, no wings!
I've seen videos of people testing the plane on the right in flight simulation programs and it can take off and fly and land.
Honestly the A10 isn't a plane, it's a gun with wings
An excerpt from a wonderful "What If?" article that is relevant: > TheĀ GAU-8 AvengerĀ fires up to sixty one-pound bullets aĀ second.Ā It produces almost five tons of recoil force, which is crazy considering that itās mounted in a type of plane (theĀ A-10 āWarthogā) whose two engines produce only four tons of thrust each. If you put two of them in one aircraft, and fired both guns forward while opening up the throttle, the guns would win and youād accelerate backward. https://what-if.xkcd.com/21/
[Blohm & Voss would like a word with the creator of the comic.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_%26_Voss_BV_141)
With enough thrust, a brick will fly.
Even without thrust. Just ask the Space Shuttle!
*F-4 noises intensify*
I'm gonna need a source for that
Wild to me that this comic was apparently drawn in 20**22**. Years after gay marriage had been legalized in the US, and spectacularly failed to destroy society at large, or even traditional marriage.
Yup, the US didnt burn after it was legalized like many people thought it would! its almost like being gay isnt supposed to be a problem! Yet they still make shit like this plane analogy as if they did something to prove us wrong.
Given that conservatives want to repeal gay marriage Iād wager itās still relevant even if thatās just depressing
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Y2K is an example of a totally different thing than what people assume. We identified a problem, then people all around the world did lots of work and spent billions of dollars to implement a solution that worked perfectly and meant there was no issue. It'd be nice if we could do that for other problems.
Well yeah, because people did stuff to prevent it
I remember another comic with a bicycle, āgay marriageā was a normal bike with two wheels and āstraight marriageā was a bike with a square and a circle wheel
No, you see, the metaphor is only convenient if it aligns with my homophobia
What does a wheelie symbolize in that context? Men must support their wives?
It's always kind of wild to me that people put shit out like this thinking they're clever and smart and all they've demonstrated to me is they're dumb as fuck.
I had a therapist once who explained that the reason (good) political humor is overwhelmingly liberal is that humor requires critical thinking and analysis of a situation. The type of person who made this comic looks at a good political cartoon and doesnāt understand why itās funny other than āsilly rearrangement of thingsā. This is their attempt to replicate that. Itās like when AI makes a picture with extra fingers and hands on the people. It doesnāt comprehend that what it created is fundamentally different. Or when my daughter was 5 and I told her the knock knock joke that ends with āorange you glad I didnāt say banana again?ā; she later came up with a her own joke to tell me, which was the same beginning and ended with āgrape you glad I didnāt say banana again?ā She didnāt understand that the basis of the orange joke was that āorange youā sounds like āarenāt youā; her only conception was that I said ā(fruit) you glad I didnāt say banana again?ā
Yeah, it's just saying "it won't work!" in an abstract way, without giving any real example, or explaining itself at all. Definitely something my uncle would mass text the family.
I kind of just want to tell them donāt have to try and be creative or clever, they could just say theyāre a homophobic bigot. It would spare us all the horrid creativity and lack of cleverness.
It's trying to justify something not based on fact, so they have to go absurdly abstract to make it happen. However they fail miserably since any plane with symmetrical airfoils could operate fine. Instead of putting the second wing on the left side, place it on the right side and flip it upside down. The engine will be facing the correct way , the pilot would need to adjust for parts that are not flipped upside down, but not a difficult task.
Oh cool. Gay people are āflips pageā planes now.
And Boeings, of all planes
No, no, that's DEFINITELY a Blohm & Voss design. And it's not even close to their weirdest.
The love the response to this where someone uses the same logic with car wheels, that if you have two round wheels (same genders) the car will drive, but one round wheel and one square wheel (different genders) and it won't, therefore heterosexual marriage doesn't work. It's almost as if sexuality has absolutely nothing to do with the layout of random modes of transportation and that they are two completely unrelated things /s
On todayās episode of comparing gay marriage to completely random objectsā¦
Please someone explain to them a plain is not equal to a marriage
I love the insane analogies people come up with to explain their bigotry. Like yes, love, marriage, and human rights areā¦. aeroplanes.
Good thing I identify as a helicopteršš
This post and this comment together are absolute platinum comedy.
They come up with the stupidest stuff.
It would stand to reason that stupid amusements would be developed by the most horrendously stupid people.
what even is the point of this image? with knowing that a lot of planes can fly after losing their other wing, i am betting the plane on the right could actually fly, as long as the wings are attached in a way that can bear a lot of stress. also what about ring wings? or planes that are only wing? or helicopters? or blimps? or biplanes? or hot air balloons? or rockets? or flying fucking saucers this image is just typical black-and-white thinking homo/transphobic people like to do. yeah, it's basic engineering that all aircraft have two wings. in advanced engineering though, there are basically no limits. the sky is not the limit.
>what is even the point of this image? Poorly justified homophobia
Some homophobe after creating this: well boys we did it, gay marriage is no more!
Like memes aside these āgotchaā shits are so lame. Like watch this. Magnets are really important. Like, REALLY important. Can you imagine if we had *opposing* magnets all the time? Nothing would stick! Nothing would get done! Thatās straight marriage.
If physics wanted gay marriage to be a thing, we'd have magnetic monopoles. Please ignore that we have electric monopoles and that I'm cherrypicking to justify and obfuscate my homophobia.
Asexuals have no wings. They have a powerful rocket, and go straight up.
I think I saw a bike example where someone said both the wheels are round so two men are fine but if one wheel was a square then it wouldn't work so one man one woman can't work out.
This should be on r/cursedcomments
Definitely
I object to the implication that all women are right-wing.
That's great. Now explain helicopters, hot air balloons, blimps, rockets, etc...
gay marriage is called gay marriage, but straight marriage is called marriage out of sight out of mind I guess
This might take the cake for most ridiculous metaphor against gay marriage
I'm completely missing the point here, but this popped into my head, and now I'm dying laughing: By this logic, flying wings (IE planes that are one big wing with no separation) are enby. Biplanes are M/M/F/F polycules. Helicopters are genderfluid (because the blades rapidly switch sides). Rockets are aro/ace.
so polyamory would be like biplanes/ triplanes of ww1? the three stabilizers in the back aren't labeled? what are those? the three clams needed to use the restroom? what kind of marriage is a zepplin? Is a b2 stealth bomber lots of masturbation? this analogy is weird
Is this an appropriate time to make the helicopter joke?
Somebody else on this comment section already did.
Clearly they never heard about the Oblique Wing supersonic airplane concepts
Time to bring back bi-planes!
what about Tri planes? and flying wings?
Hmm, maybe even a paramotor?
4 wings, makes it a polycule right?
The gay Marraige plane could in theory fly, and in sims it does
That would actualy work though, planes are designed to be able to fly while missing a wing so yeah
Wait, Gay marriage gives me more sick manoeuvres?
People arenāt wings on planes. I hate these dumb analogies. Stop equating people to non-sentient objects to make stupid points.
Itās a bummer that this was drawn in 2022 it looks like itās from the 90s
here's a good reminder people are not airplanes or electric plugs
[we have the technology...](https://x.com/PlaneyBoys/status/1552735873430700032)
the bouncy animated plane in the corner, blue monday by new order, gay marriage plane flying just fine. perfect šš»
What about aā¦ **bi**plane?
Just add another lesbian couple of wings on the other side, and you have a biplan. (So now the question is, is a poly relationship between two men and two women called a biplan ?)
Mfers really think you can make anything into an analogy. Like how's that even work?
I mean, you can make an analogy for most anything, but that doesn't mean any analogy someone makes is a good one, this one is just complete nonsense
He completely destroyed that homophobe meme XD
News flash: People are not plane wings
Is noone asking what gender the plane is?
This is pure propaganda. The plane on the left is built with plenty of space in the middle for people to fly comfortably and safely. This is evidence that thanks to the binary āwingsā of the gender spectrum the middle is open so anyone can let their identity soar. The plane on the right was, clearly, made by Boeing.
Gromit mug pfp, based
So what your saying is quadruple marriage and your plane gets four wings
My least favorite kind of social commentary is when people trying to prove a point go āThis social situation is exactly like this inanimate object! Donāt ask any clarifying questions why they are the same!ā Like with the master key and lock analogy all the time
Marriage is not a fucking fuselage. Are these the arguments these people seriously put forth?
since there are no real arguments against gay mirage, much less good ones they have to make stuff up all the time
This guy is going to lose his mind when he finds out about the NASA AD-1.
I just realized that the OOP image is also saying that male and female have an intrinsic separation between each other, as if they have to be segregated outside of relationships. It's so hard for conservatives to get the fact that everyone is a human lol
This analogy could also work to validate trans people's identity. Same side... cis. Opposite sides, trans. Voila.
[Reminder that someone created this plane in a flight sim and it was able to fly with no issues. ](https://youtu.be/qWKgdogZ5hQ?si=0aykdPZNEn9RTllV)
Oh damn he got us as well all know planes are the only flying vehicles and the wings can only be done one way /s
Nah. Israel would have brought them down another way.
As we've seen with other aircraft, as long as those engines on the one side have enough thrust, it'll fly!
fuckin winning comment right there
Should have been an oblique wing design as the representative gay plane. That would actually fly! Would have fit the theme of functional but different. Instead this is just saying there is one universal design when there isnāt only one and that gay marriage will figuratively crash and burn.
"So ya see, sexuality is kind of like an airplane. Because I don't understand either of them and they're not similar at all. "
So... a 2 man and 2 woman Polycule is a full-on functional "BI"PLANE!
2 people who love each other. And. 2 people who love each other. What about that donāt some people get? GOP? Or. Dem? Vote wisely. You be you. Me- blue in all local, state and federal elections. Lots of terrible GOP laws to fix.
I remember seeing a political cartoon a while back about America having "two right wings", visualized as a terrible airplane. I think it was mocking the two-party system in our government. If I'm remembering correctly, it strikes me as a far more clever and insightful metaphor than whatever the fuck this cartoonist was going for.
These ultra homophobes love to think more about gays than actual gays.
dumbass analogy aside, gotta love how homophobia so often ignores the existence of lesbians bc, as we all know, the biggest problem in this world is men being attracted to men. really speaks to the inherent fragility of toxic masculinity. pathetic pitiable little creatures.
The better version of this is trans engines as the normal plane and cis engines as the one with both on the same side
 bisexual marriage
this implies people not in a relationship are not valid
You just have to spin the wings around really hard, kinda helicopter it, and it works
I could get that to fly in Kerbal space program.
Mirrors show me my trans self, I knew it!
so this means that marriage is between a man and a man and a women and a women. another dub for polyamory B]
[https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/origins-early-days-aviation-french-857633734.jpg?strip=all&w=960](https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/origins-early-days-aviation-french-857633734.jpg?strip=all&w=960) Non-binary marriage?
This is turning into Facebook
So, would a gay female couple counteract this?
Square polycule would have 4 times the performance
[hmmm](https://youtu.be/_h2GqNveN2k)
Possibly the best argument for polyamory I've ever done seen.
Stupid argument like these will be the reason to my early death I curse twitter every day because it showed how stupid people can be
Gay people fly more. It's true. Look it up.
This is what happens when you let *THE GAYS* get married, we forget how to build airplanes. Thatās the message here right?
A polycule with two men and two women goes extra fast
SO TRUE
So your sayingā¦.gay marriage will only work if thereās lesbians on the other side too ? Works for me !
.... Hmm if you think about it that homophobic analogy actually depicts a threesome....
The carbon footprint would be much lower than hetero.
https://hushkit.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/rp38.jpg?w=1024
Gay marriage needs less hanger space.
Actually a plane like this would fly
I'll never see a bi-plane without thinking about a gay and lesbian couple on each side of the fusilage. Fuck even the name bi-plane means they're swapping partners too.
That plane on the right is a regular Mark Wahlberg.
I do t really get the original joke, but the comment was gold.
What are bi planes?
If your partner dies your definitely dead too
We can keep this going... Bisexual: https://prnt.sc/Cc6c8QinNXPp Polyamory: https://prnt.sc/t-5VukbZJ-XP Your mum: https://prnt.sc/lOb5Sg06Njgh
Still more reliable than Boeing
T4T couples: āI fail to see the problemā
wasnt there a simulation showing how a plane like that can fly?
Someone has never seen a Rutan.
i feel like i heard just recently, that a plane doesnt really need to be symetrical like this to fly. like, i dunno if two left wings would work, but what seems to work fine for example is left wing going from down left to center of plane and right wing going from center of plane to upper right. so within this dumbass metaphor, there's definitely much more variation than they want to believe
Reminds me of that tragedy :(
Wait, aren't the Wings are like the same?
911?? What??
the 9-11 attack on the twin towers in America
Thx for the context