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

BigGayDeal.com

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. Thanks to science anybody can have children today.

    Posted by: Mike | Jul 10, 2012 12:32:41 AM


  2. It's a New Yorker cartoon kids, they're supposed to be subtle and work on many levels. And this one does exactly that, which is evidenced by how many different responses you can see in these comments.

    Personally, I think it turns the idea of gay marriage on it's head, renders the idea of royalty as "every day" and pokes fun at NOM types because of how literal they take everything... and it's timely.

    In short, it's the perfect kind of New Yorker cartoon. And yes, I think it's funny, too.

    Posted by: johnny | Jul 10, 2012 12:50:25 AM


  3. Not funny or offensive... just dumb.

    Posted by: Tarc | Jul 10, 2012 1:28:48 AM


  4. not really offensive, but the king would have known that from the start

    Posted by: Michael DeSelms | Jul 10, 2012 1:36:20 AM


  5. The New Yorker's cartoons are never funny except in a 'twitch of the lips' huh, way. This is mostly a sort of play on 'Game of Thrones' medievalism meets modern gay relationships.

    Posted by: Steerpike | Jul 10, 2012 1:51:15 AM


  6. I dont think the point of the cartoon is no procreation. It's an ironic look at how the middle eastern sheikh in spite of bonking another man (as liberal as that) can't seem to get over his fascination for a male child (as old fashioned as that)

    Posted by: vikram johri | Jul 10, 2012 2:38:42 AM


  7. FUNNY!

    Posted by: andrew | Jul 10, 2012 3:02:57 AM


  8. Maggie and Richard could look at a rock and use it as a metaphor to advance their hatred.

    Posted by: AngelaChanning | Jul 10, 2012 3:50:25 AM


  9. Funny.

    Posted by: Matt26 | Jul 10, 2012 4:09:52 AM


  10. "hilarious"? wow you people need to get out more. not funny, not offensive. pointless.

    Posted by: DanSwon | Jul 10, 2012 5:23:46 AM


  11. "hilarious"? wow you people need to get out more. not funny, not offensive. pointless.

    Posted by: DanSwon | Jul 10, 2012 5:23:51 AM


  12. "hilarious"? wow you people need to get out more. not funny, not offensive. pointless.

    Posted by: DanSwon | Jul 10, 2012 5:23:55 AM


  13. Um, there were kissing sailors once on a Valentine's day cover in the 1990s. Chill out. The New Yorker is great.

    Posted by: Scott | Jul 10, 2012 6:06:31 AM


  14. Um, there were kissing sailors once on a Valentine's day cover in the 1990s. Chill out. The New Yorker is great.

    Posted by: Scott | Jul 10, 2012 6:06:33 AM


  15. Oddly, Henry VIII introduced divorce for the British monarchy because of procreation failure.

    This argument serves less to support opposite-sex-only marriage, and instead points to shallowness of those who sit on that side of the fence. In their minds, it would appear, infertility provides sufficient grounds to end a marriage, but binding love and commitment offer insufficient grounds to begin one.

    Posted by: Ambiverbal | Jul 10, 2012 6:54:32 AM


  16. Not really funny--but not, I think, for the reason you question it. It's just not all that funny.

    Posted by: Daniel Berry, NYC | Jul 10, 2012 7:12:47 AM


  17. Yes, I'm sure Maggie Gallagher reads noted liberal journal The New Yorker, scouring the cartoon sections for ammunition.

    I mean, really, can you imagine how persuasive a NEW YORKER CARTOON would be to her core rabble?

    Posted by: Clif3012 | Jul 10, 2012 8:08:52 AM


  18. It's okay, but not that funny.

    Posted by: RobWest | Jul 10, 2012 8:30:46 AM


  19. It would have been even more funny with a big old dog sitting right between the two of them...leave to the dog or animal charities.The hell with procreation. People most concerned with the issue should'd have kids anyway. Example Michele Bachmann and her line of...pedigrees!

    Posted by: VDUFFORD | Jul 10, 2012 9:08:02 AM


  20. I never really find New Yorker cartoons to be funny. This one isn't funny, but it isn't offenive either. As far as the procreation nuts go - who cares?

    Posted by: Sam | Jul 10, 2012 9:33:13 AM


  21. Jason, The New Yorker magazine is driving you, and some other nondisclosed gays, away from the Democratic Party? Seriously?!

    Posted by: Sam | Jul 10, 2012 9:35:11 AM


  22. I'd say this hits the "sorta-mildly-amusing" mark like about 90% of New Yorker cartoons. Not offensive, though.

    Posted by: Glenn | Jul 10, 2012 9:37:00 AM


  23. Yes, and if the so called "Christian conservatives" do take it that way, all they'll do is demonstrate that they have no sense of humor whatsoever, which we pretty much know anyway.

    Posted by: DeeVee | Jul 10, 2012 9:43:56 AM


  24. Funny in a snooty sort of way. That is, I didn't roll off my chair, but I was "amused." It is very good satire and hits alot of notes, sending up notions of class, gender politics, sexual politics, etc. There's a mild implied jab at gays for wanting to partake of the initially royal, and eventually bourgeois institution of marriage (despite the lofty rhetoric we use to fight for our rights). There's a bigger jab at straights who wish to keep gays from marrying, pointing to the ridiculousness of the "marriage as vehicle for procreation" argument - more specifically, the "I'm special because I'm straight and can procreate with my partner, and therefore deserve marriage, while gays don't" implication of that argument.

    Posted by: Andalusian Dog | Jul 10, 2012 11:12:19 AM


  25. Has anyone else noticed that The New Yorker has fallen to a second-tier literary rag? This cartoon is a prime example. Tacky, tasteless, and humourless.

    Posted by: jamal49 | Jul 10, 2012 11:20:50 AM


  26. « | 1 2 3 4 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Towleroad Guide To The Tube #1161« «