Ashton Kutcher | Film and TV | Gay Media | Gay Pride | News

'Two And A Half Men' To Explore Gay Rights In Final Season [Spoilers]

In a rather stunning turn of events, CBS has announced that 'Two And a Half Men' stars Ashton Kutcher and Jon Cryer will get married in the show's final season. Why? So that they can adopt a child together.

TwoAndAHalfMenAccording to a piece from The Hollywood Reporter, Kutcher's character, Walden, will have a health scare at the beginning of the season leading to a search for meaning and resulting in a desire to have a child of his own. The problem? It is difficult to adopt as a single, heterosexual man. The solution? To marry the man who already essentially serves as his life partner, Cryer's Alan, and adopt a child together. 

CBS Entertainment chairman Nina Tassler reportedly loves the idea:

She called the story a "great ride," and said that she views the storyline as a "very positive statement" about the wave of gay rights that are becoming more commonplace across the country and that she's not worried about any sort of blowback from the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

"I think it's a very positive statement that, you know what, I am going to adopt a child as [part of] a gay couple and the reality is, he can do that," she told THR. "And in a universe where at one point you couldn't do that and now you can do that, I think that's a much more positive statement that he's making."

Show creator Chuck Lorre recognized the possibility for offense but said he hopes viewers will not take the show too seriously.

"I hope there's [no backlash]," Lorre told E! News at the CBS TCA party on Thursday. "The show has always caused controversy. We have. There's no intention to insult or diminish anyone. The intention is to create laughter. That's it. Great laughter and if it's got a heartbeat in there that would be nice, too."

GLAAD stated that they hope the show will address the fact that in many states it is still impossible for same-sex couples to adopt children, but they have otherwise remained silent. 

What do you think about the heterosexual-same-sex-marriage plot? Offensive or inspired?

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. What does that have to do with gay rights? All that it is showing is two heterosexual men taking advantage of a lot and work and pain by by gay people.

    Posted by: Mike in the Tundra | Jul 22, 2014 3:10:41 PM

  2. What's more appalling is the fact that Chuck Lorre honestly thinks that this popular CBS atrocity can evoke laughter from anyone with two working brain cells. I can tell you that I've seen "Two and a Half Men" episodes on trans-continental American Airlines flights; those are the only flights where I wished for our plane to go down, if only to stop the pain of watching "Two and a Half Men".

    Just kidding. Kind of. The show is terrible and should have been put out of our misery years ago.

    The plot line? Well, it belittles the pain and struggle that we married gay and lesbian folk have gone through to get married and turns it into what will probably be a Gay Panic-filled, laughter-free 22 minutes of stupidity.

    Oh please make it stop.

    Posted by: One of the CA 36,000+ | Jul 22, 2014 3:11:32 PM

  3. Offensive and exploitative. Diminishes the significance of a real gay marriage based on love and commitment by demonstrating a false one based on calculation and subterfuge.

    Posted by: Richard | Jul 22, 2014 3:12:32 PM

  4. This confirms one of the pathetic arguments offered by bigots against "gay marriage": that heteros will use it to obtain tax breaks and other things not available to unmarried people, A story line about using marriage as a loop hole to obtain an adoption may seem benign but you know that the Usual Suspects will
    get enough of the Gay Agenda dislodged from their throats to say AHA!

    Posted by: gregorybrown | Jul 22, 2014 3:12:56 PM

  5. Would it not have made more sense for him to marry a woman and adopt? How does being in a SS marriage help with adoption? They don't throw kids at gay people.

    Posted by: Sams Here | Jul 22, 2014 3:16:43 PM

  6. I do not watch the show, and this proposed storyline does nothing to entice me. It's bad karma. As stated above, a "fake" hetero/gay marriage, even on a fictional TV show, plays shamefully against the thousands of couples aching to get married for real love and commitment.

    Posted by: Drummond | Jul 22, 2014 3:19:11 PM

  7. Are they kidding with this? So basically..."Laughter. Great laughter." at the possible expense of gays, and the real gay people fighting for our rights.

    Who in Hollywood thought this was a good idea.

    But mostly what it will do is get repubs to wag their fingers and say "see what gay rights will do? Now Jon and Ashton, and straight men will try to adopt those kids we dropped off at the orphanage that we didn't ever want. How dare they." I can hear them now complaining about the gays are destroying traditional marriage and adoption.

    Maybe it will foster debate. But I'm not interested in debating about fictional straight characters trying to adopt by pretending to be gay.

    I'm concerned about real gay people, fighting for real gay rights.

    Do a tv show about that, Hollywood.

    Posted by: codpiece | Jul 22, 2014 3:20:36 PM

  8. Disregarding the plot line's artistic license and suspension of belief aside, just curious, when did it become difficult for a single, white male billionaire to adopt kids? The "billionaire" aspect alone guarantees a child's adoption, single or otherwise. That's where the incredulity comes into play.

    Posted by: Rick Moore | Jul 22, 2014 3:24:28 PM

  9. What's all the fuss? Heterosexual people have been bastardizing marriage for their own selfish purposes for hundreds of years (immigration, citizenship, inheritance, frivolity, etc.). Why are we surprised? This only shows how little sanctity they actually have for this institution. Meh.

    Posted by: Eddie in OKC | Jul 22, 2014 3:25:28 PM

  10. Very short-sighted. As well-intentioned as the producers may characterize this turn of events, this purported storyline will only reinforce the opposition's artillery against same-sex marriage. Given that here two characters are not (currently identifying as ) GAY, theirs is not a "gay marriage." Rather, it is 2 heterosexual men using the guise of Gay marriage, and usurping marriage equality as a means to achieve their own end. As positive as this end may be (to adopt a child), it is a legal slippery slope if we accept this as a forgiveable reason to fake a gay marriage, or any marriage, for that matter.

    While marriage as an institution has often been more about legal contracts, inheritance, property, and societal position than about love and family, this storyline will only play into the anti-marriage equality folks that use scare tactics about abuse of the marital status for personal gain.

    Perhaps a better storyline would be for the characters to consider their options, and choose instead either to work within the system to change this negative view of single male parents, or to choose to co-parent a child with a loving and COMMITTED couple (presumably Lesbian - such as Charlie's daughter - but also potentially a heterosexual couple with fertility challenges).

    Just my 2 cents. In the end, I don't have much hope that this show will veer from it's consistently predictable low-brow path, playing to the least common denominator, and having no lasting societal impact.

    Posted by: Rob | Jul 22, 2014 3:27:08 PM

  11. Well, if GLAAD approves, it should be fine with all of us.


    Posted by: freddy | Jul 22, 2014 3:29:41 PM

  12. If I wasn't constantly surprised that the show was still on, I guess I'd be offended, but as it is, I can't bring myself to care what they do. Plus it's not even an original storyline. I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry already did it like 5 years ago.

    Posted by: Chris | Jul 22, 2014 3:30:46 PM

  13. Wow, how f*cking homophobic is this show??!! Where is GLAAD?? As much as I love the transgendered comm, GLAAD appears to not be able to do more then one thing at the same time, so they will of course ignore this.

    Posted by: Rowan | Jul 22, 2014 3:32:46 PM

  14. Chuck Lorre has proven to be totally insensitive and tone-deaf when it comes to LGBT characters on every single series he's ever had on television. His LGBT characters, and even the hint of being LGBT, are always the brunt of the joke. This is going to be a disaster.

    Posted by: Mike | Jul 22, 2014 3:35:11 PM

  15. I didn't think the show could sink any lower for cheap laughs.

    Posted by: Garst | Jul 22, 2014 3:38:30 PM

  16. i've never seen the show, and never will.

    funny? no. offensive? yes, primarily because gay rights are still ignored by many states across the country. unique? not at all, in fact quite predictable. potential for good? possibly, it all depends on the writing and behaviors exhibited by the characters, but will not likely have any positive effect. i'll let fans of the show and tv reviewers figure it out.

    Posted by: northalabama | Jul 22, 2014 3:47:31 PM

  17. This was already done in that mediocre Adam Sandler/Kevin James movie "I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry" a few years ago. I never watch the show as I don't find it funny, and don't plan to now.

    Posted by: leprechaunvict | Jul 22, 2014 4:13:07 PM

  18. Mildly offensive. I am millions of other Americans live in a state where it certainly does not help your adoption chances by being in a same sex marriage. In fact, they don't even recognize my marriage, and under state law I would have to adopt as a single man despite being married in Massachusetts 2 years ago. They could at least wait until we all have the right to marry before exploiting it.

    Posted by: Brad | Jul 22, 2014 4:14:52 PM

  19. already been done

    always sunny in phili already did it

    and i bet i could find many other shows who have done it as wel if i wanted to google it

    Posted by: Moz's | Jul 22, 2014 4:27:48 PM

  20. this was announced a week ago: has Towleroad been asleep in Provincetown until today?

    Posted by: keating | Jul 22, 2014 4:30:05 PM

  21. My God, people get offended at literally anything lately. I don't watch the show and this won't make me watch it, but jeez, people, I feel like our new national pastime is to sit back and write angry letters denouncing people and demanding apologies.

    Posted by: Zell | Jul 22, 2014 4:34:25 PM

  22. Aren't Ashton Kutcher and Jon Cryer brothers on that show?

    Posted by: John | Jul 22, 2014 4:38:57 PM

  23. If the wackos can state that Obama is using the downed Malaysian airliner to advance the "gay agenda", then it really doesn't matter what Chuck Lorre, CBS, TV in general does. They already hate everything about it anyway. None of the characters on 2.5 Men are "Christian role models", sleeping around as they do. The most troubling aspect to them is probably that Alden is a billionaire and we all know that God favors with riches the righteous. Perhaps his existential suffering makes up for it, I dunno.

    I don't and won't watch it. I did check it out when Ashton replaced Martin's idiot son because I always thought Ashton had potential. He still might, but he doesn't display it here. As for the plot line, network television almost never leads. Mitch and Cam just got married on Modern Family. In TV time, the CA ruling came after the season had ended in 2013. And the lead up to a wedding is far too much fun to rush, so it took a year.

    And, finally, the demographic that any network comedy seeks is young, male, stupid consumers. Big Bang Theory is the biggest show on network TV because it has more crossover appeal. 2.5 men is still around because it solidly tells stories that demographic wants to see. Alan is pathetic, he still gets laid. Alden is rich, he still has problems. The .5 is still an idiot [on and off screen]. And moving that demographic to realize that their might be benefits for THEM in SSM is not a bad thing.

    As Ellen says, "Haters gonna hate" and they will no matter what we do, what TV does. No AG is going to stand up in front of the Supremes and argue that we can't have SSM nationwide because then Alden can marry Alan, he already CAN. They live in Malibu, California, but it could be Cape Cod, Fire Island, Lanai, Astoria [OR], Bainbridge Island [WA], Palisades Highlands [NJ], Santa Fe, Highland Park [Il] or Astoria [ME]. And Ruth Bader Ginsberg will ask, "How is that any different from what drives some heterosexual marriages now?"

    from Hollywood,

    Posted by: ben~andy | Jul 22, 2014 4:40:05 PM

  24. Yeah, what could possibly be offensive about trivializing Marriage Equality at a time when many are still being denied equal benefits for their spouses & children today.

    I suppose they're trying to exploit reaction for any publicity. I'll do my best to not even mention that I know it's happening.

    I actually like both Cryer & Kutcher, but I'm completely disappointed in them both.

    Posted by: pete n sfo | Jul 22, 2014 4:41:32 PM

  25. When people are hurt it does matter. I find offense to it because me and my partner had to go through HELL to adopt our 4 kids in Georgia. We fostered to adopt together but when it came time for the adoption they dropped me like a hot potato. We had to go out and hire a separate attorney in order for me to do a second parent adoption. We could not do it together, so we have the true story to tell.

    Posted by: David | Jul 22, 2014 4:43:42 PM

  26. 1 2 3 »

Post a comment


« «Diplo Serves Up a Remix of Lorde's 'Tennis Court': LISTEN« «