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. Not funny - not because I'm offended, but because, like most New Yorker cartoons, it's just not funny. And, I highly doubt anyone from NOM is educated enough to be reading the New Yorker...

    Posted by: Mikey | Jul 9, 2012 9:31:57 PM


  2. Not funny - not because I'm offended, but because, like most New Yorker cartoons, it's just not funny. And, I highly doubt anyone from NOM is educated enough to be reading the New Yorker...

    Posted by: Mikey | Jul 9, 2012 9:32:14 PM


  3. It's funny. Shows that as gayness rises, monarchies (of all kinds) become less and less viable.

    Posted by: trecer | Jul 9, 2012 9:33:49 PM


  4. It's actually insidious as well as unfunny, because it perpetuates the notion that gay men cannot have children, when they can and do. What message does this send to the kids of gay men who were adopted or came into the world through surrogacy?

    Posted by: Q | Jul 9, 2012 9:34:16 PM


  5. Omg, I can't stand this site when Andrew Belonsky edits it. Don't even get me started on how brainless this "commentary" is. Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame.

    Posted by: Reggie | Jul 9, 2012 9:45:10 PM


  6. @gaylib - very well stated.
    @Jason - ???. The New Yorker was where Annie Proulx first published Brokeback Mountain.

    Posted by: Stephen | Jul 9, 2012 9:57:23 PM


  7. I dont usually rant but responding to the responses on monarchies, i enjoy having Queen Beatrix as my head of government, I see the royal family as an investment for our country to have a reliable family to set a moral standard and stand strong in face of tough times... The Dutch royal house hasn't always done this but i feel they are becoming so... Thought the cartoon was funny nonetheless!

    Posted by: Patrick | Jul 9, 2012 10:17:42 PM


  8. JASON said: "this sort of attitude is transparently obvious"

    then how come i'd never noticed it or had it pointed out to me before reading your comment? and likely many other readers here could say the same....

    JASON also said: "this sort of attitude...is driving us away from the Democratic Party."

    2 depictions of bride-bride couples are driving "us" away from the Democratic Party? LULZ. i daresay you are making mountains out of molehills; 2 gay-friendly illustrations are not driving any gays away from the Dems--except for maybe you...but actually not really because it sounds like you're already pretty Republication/libertarian/whatever-the-f&ck.

    QUEEN, PLEASE!

    Posted by: redball | Jul 9, 2012 10:27:54 PM


  9. I saw this and found it hilarious! Why, I'm not even sure, but I loved it. If I think on it and examine, it compares the argument against gay marriage (procreation) to a guy who split with the established church and started his own so he could, according to the Catholic Church, abandoned his wife and commit adultery. Throw in the facts that royalty were supposed to be ordained by God and the fact that he beheaded wives (hardly a Christian thing to do), you have a beautiful comparison showing how ridiculous their point is.

    Posted by: Matt S. | Jul 9, 2012 10:30:20 PM


  10. Dumb, thats all. Too dumb to care what anyone might think.

    Posted by: Steve | Jul 9, 2012 10:31:47 PM


  11. If anything, this pokes fun at the Maggie Gallaghers of the world. Of course, she wouldn't get the joke. Not our problem.

    Posted by: westcoast88 | Jul 9, 2012 10:33:08 PM


  12. errrr: Republican*!

    Posted by: redball | Jul 9, 2012 10:35:33 PM


  13. Great satire. Groundbreaking in a historical sense...and with bears no less!!!

    Posted by: Bryan | Jul 9, 2012 10:43:07 PM


  14. Great satire. Groundbreaking in a historical sense...and with bears no less!!!

    Posted by: Bryan | Jul 9, 2012 10:43:21 PM


  15. I thought it was poking fun of NOM types in a way. As if to say the idea that marriage or relationships are only valid if they can produce children is an antiquated notion (much like monarchs). Making the king, and those who believe only those with kids should get married/be in relationships, just silly.

    However, Bravo's statement earlier gives away the punchline. "He married the wrong queen."

    Not hilarious, but okay for the new yorker. I suppose how you want to read it will determine whether it is homophobic or not.

    Posted by: Joe | Jul 9, 2012 10:48:51 PM


  16. For what it's worth, Henry Finder, an openly gay guy, is the editorial director of The New Yorker and has been at that post since 1997. His partner is the brilliant philosopher and cultural theorist Kwame Anthony Appiah.

    I don't think The New Yorker is anti-gay or afraid of gays in the least.

    Posted by: drifter | Jul 9, 2012 10:54:31 PM


  17. Are ya'll responding seriously to Jason "END THE BISEXUAL DOUBLE STANDARD!"? He's been carting that crap out on this site for as long as Michael Bedwell's been leaving walls of text.

    And it was established long ago that "Jason" and "Brian" are the same person. Girlfriend needs a new handle.

    Posted by: endo | Jul 9, 2012 10:54:41 PM


  18. Tip of the top hat to Eustace. I imagine that FLOCKS of evangelical Christians will drop their Baffler and NYROB subscriptions to subscribe to the New Yorker now.

    Posted by: Silly Tilley | Jul 9, 2012 10:55:21 PM


  19. Not offensive, just not funny (like the vast majority of New Yorker cartoons)

    Posted by: Jmac | Jul 9, 2012 11:09:05 PM


  20. I love people who judge a magazine by its covers. You're funny!

    Posted by: Bingo | Jul 9, 2012 11:12:37 PM


  21. While its not exactly funny, it is making a correct commentary on WTF procreation has to do with gay marriage.

    Posted by: Michael | Jul 9, 2012 11:25:41 PM


  22. ENDO, i forgot about that. touché

    Posted by: redball | Jul 9, 2012 11:31:01 PM


  23. Are the New Yorker comics supposed to be funny, or...exactly.

    Posted by: Aaron | Jul 10, 2012 12:05:40 AM


  24. Misleading hed: MALE heir...The reader is to presume that several other heirs, all non-male, have been provided, else why would His Majesty say 'male heir' as he heads out the door? It's more about the goofiness of male primogeniture than anything else. That said, almost from the start (1925), NYer cartoons have required a virtual decoder ring. That's part of the fun: figuring out the obtuse -- or concluding there's nothing to figure out.
    "What have you done with Dr. Millmoss?"
    "I say it's spinach, and I say the hell with it."
    "I come from haunts of coot and hern!"

    Posted by: Mark | Jul 10, 2012 12:24:29 AM


  25. Any gay person can have children if they choose to have their own children, a mans sperm and a woman's egg can make a baby. The LGBT person only has to choose who the man and the woman will be to carry the baby. For example a gay man can donate sperm to a place where they insert sperm into a woman's egg and implant it into a woman who carries the child up to birth. Also a lesbian and choose a mans sperm and have it placed with he eggs and then carry the egg to birth. We have science today that can even choose if you want a boy or girl. Ain't science grand, they can even make babies out of any mans sperm put in any woman's egg and then carry it to a birth, gay or straight.

    Posted by: Mike | Jul 10, 2012 12:31:02 AM


  26. « | 1 2 3 4 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Towleroad Guide To The Tube #1161« «