Bryan Fischer | Gay Adoption | Gay Marriage | Maggie Gallagher | News

Cartoon Gay Couple Can't Produce An Heir: Funny Or Not Funny?

MaleHeir

This cartoon comes from this week's edition of The New Yorker.

It's funny, I guess, but I can also see Christian conservatives like Bryan Fischer or Maggie Gallagher pointing to this and saying, "See, this is why gays shouldn't get married: no procreation!"

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Funny.

    Posted by: shane | Jul 9, 2012 8:09:06 PM


  2. With that crown you'd think they'd have a nicer castle.

    Not all that funny, but not offensive.

    Posted by: Alan | Jul 9, 2012 8:12:49 PM


  3. It's hilarious. And I hope nobody is taking their ideals of marriage from the practices of European royalty.

    Posted by: Fodolodo | Jul 9, 2012 8:16:40 PM


  4. Hilarious. Shows you how outmoded monarchies are in today's world.

    Posted by: grench | Jul 9, 2012 8:27:12 PM


  5. Didn't straight Henry Tudor do the same thing to Anne Boelyn? It just happens to be a gay couple this time and the boyfriend gets to keep his head.

    Posted by: woodroad34 | Jul 9, 2012 8:31:15 PM


  6. For a dollar or two you can hire a bimbo to have your baby.

    Posted by: Macmantoo | Jul 9, 2012 8:34:06 PM


  7. Andrew, I believe you're over-thinking it. It's kind of funny. Leave it at that.

    Posted by: Jacques | Jul 9, 2012 8:34:37 PM


  8. Apparently he married the wrong queen.

    Posted by: bravo | Jul 9, 2012 8:39:46 PM


  9. I think it would be funnier if there was a visible family photo where it is clear they have a bunch of daughters - just no sons.

    Posted by: Don | Jul 9, 2012 8:42:01 PM


  10. It's actually a very good satire of the argument for "traditional" marriage, which is what Mags and Brian keep whining on about. The fact is that "traditional" marriage was all about property, and providing a reputable, and verifiable, (male) heir for mostly barbaric, patriarchal societies. The fact that much of that part of marriage no longer exists is the crux of our argument for marriage equality and debunks the notion that marriage hasn't changed in "3000 years". Of course it's much too sophisticated for Maggie's audience anyway, so maybe they WILL think it's funny.

    Posted by: gaylib | Jul 9, 2012 8:45:43 PM


  11. Given the multiple meanings of 'queen', I'd say the cartoonist held back a lot.

    Posted by: Gregoire | Jul 9, 2012 8:45:58 PM


  12. hI thought Henry the 8th was the one with the infertility issues. Who is this Richard?

    Posted by: Sargon Bighorn | Jul 9, 2012 8:46:55 PM


  13. Two outmoded ways of thinking. Do you think that Bryan Fischer will ever pick up The NewYorker after their piece on him?

    Posted by: Dan4444 | Jul 9, 2012 8:48:39 PM


  14. You don't react well to droll wit.

    Posted by: patrick | Jul 9, 2012 8:49:23 PM


  15. It's a joke. Please let's not let NOM's ridiculousness determine what we can laugh at.

    Posted by: Umm | Jul 9, 2012 8:53:32 PM


  16. The New Yorker is actually quite a homophobic magazine when it comes to male-male sexuality. Consider this: when given the choice to have either a female-female couple or a male-male couple on its cover, the New Yorker has always gone for the female-female couple. It's done it twice in the last year.

    I would say the New Yorker is the product of East Coast liberals who think girl-girl is hot and guy-guy is gross. They are basically Democratic Party voters who hide their disdain for male homosexuals.

    What they don't realize is that this sort of attitude is transparently obvious, and is driving us away from the Democratic Party.

    Posted by: jason | Jul 9, 2012 8:55:55 PM


  17. I've never liked The New Yorker. I've sensed an undercurrent of hostility towards gay men in that magazine. It's subtle, such as the refusal to depict a gay male couple on its cover as mentioned by Jason above.

    Posted by: brian | Jul 9, 2012 8:58:17 PM


  18. O, come on, it's silly. Have a laugh, old boy!

    Posted by: LFB | Jul 9, 2012 8:59:10 PM


  19. Not offensive, but not particularly funny either. Fortunately, I doubt anyone from NOM reads.

    Posted by: ChristopherM | Jul 9, 2012 8:59:22 PM


  20. Giggles :)

    Posted by: MArk | Jul 9, 2012 8:59:28 PM


  21. Call me a bigot if you like, but I also don't believe in same sex marriage for hereditary monarchs.

    Posted by: peter | Jul 9, 2012 8:59:32 PM


  22. It's funny and who cares what Maggie Gallagher says. She's nutjob.

    Posted by: Daws | Jul 9, 2012 9:11:49 PM


  23. For a New Yorker cartoon it's rather an obvious joke- not offensive but not that funny either.

    Posted by: jaragon | Jul 9, 2012 9:25:29 PM


  24. I took it the opposite way. It's pointing out how ludicrous and archaic it sounds to have a couple be forced to split up because one can't have the other's children.

    Posted by: Joey Y | Jul 9, 2012 9:29:50 PM


  25. To ask of a typical New Yorker cartoon "funny or not funny?" is the same as to ask of a bowl of soup "Thursday or not Thursday?" In other words, besides the point.

    Posted by: Strepsi | Jul 9, 2012 9:30:47 PM


  26. 1 2 3 4 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Towleroad Guide To The Tube #1161« «