bizarro 04-20-14 hedrBizarro 04-20-14 WEB(Click any eyeball to see the cartoon grow to the size of a larger cartoon!)

Bizarro is brought to you today by Jazz Age Pickles.

I’ve drawn today’s cartoon in the style of the old romance comic books, which is not my usual fare, as you regular Jazz Pickles know. I don’t always do cartoons with a social message like this one, but it isn’t all that unusual for me, either.

If you’ve missed the thinly-veiled message of today’s cartoon, it’s about the persistence of bigotry against homosexuals.

I’m not homosexual, or even bisexual, but neither am I narrow-minded nor do I blindly follow ancient superstitions and mythologies. If you still wonder if homosexuality is a “choice” and believe that the activity of loving another consenting adult of the same sex is a “sin,” ask yourself if your own sexual proclivities are a choice. Do we choose who or what we are sexually attracted to, or is it a natural force that comes over us like hunger, without our consent? You know the answer to that as well as I do. Did I choose to be attracted to women with thick, luscious hair covering their backs? Certainly not, mostly because they are SO damned difficult to find.

PAZZ JICKLES: Speaking of a world gone crazy, here is a vision of the future that I concocted in 1997. I’m still proud of this idea.bizarro 08-24-97 cloningWEB


18 thoughts on ““Funny”

  1. Excellent analogy, Dan. I don’t know if you intended it, but the punchline about “you don’t have to be funny to be a cartoon character” is also analogous to “You Don’t Have to Be Happy to Be Gay”, which I recall first hearing as a very gay-but-melancholy musical number on Laugh-In in the early ’70s (and it’s still often a relevant point). But even if you didn’t intend it, feel free to claim you did.

    Of course, the scenario in the Classic sort of makes everything moot, because once cloning is sufficiently advanced, we’ll ALL be cartoon characters. :)

  2. My goodness Dan, every time I look at your comics I think it must take you forever to draw them! My thirteen year old daughter is a budding artist and a fan of yours, perhaps you could outline some of your process some day. For instance, what type of hardware (PC, Mac, Wacom) and graphics software do you prefer? I think other truly devoted JPs would love to hear more about the process behind the art.

    • These days I draw on a Wacom Cintiq screen connected to a Mac laptop but up until 2012, I drew them by hand with a brush on bristol board, then scanned them into my computer. Photoshop is the program I use for drawing and coloring. That’s about all one needs to know. After that, it’s just practice. :^}

  3. Your much needed message apparently has fallen on deaf eyes when it comes those commenting at your ArcaMax portal. They all seem overly focused on icons. Comments on content are often harder to find than icons. I enjoy the icons but the content is worth far more. Thanks for today’s Bizzaro. Happy spring!

  4. Great Easter comic, especially on the same day a catholic bishop in Uganda basically called for the genocide of all gay people.

    Is it hair growing on their backs, or is it hair long enough to cover their backs? One is sinful, and the other is not. I’ll leave it to people who haven’t read their holy book to determine which is which.

  5. I have asked myself the question–yes, my sexual “proclivities” are a choice for me. We all have the ability to nurture our passions or not. But I am glad that you mentioned it since that is something that seems to be taken for granted in all of our conversations about the subject, in our media, and in the law–that there is no choice. That it is purely nature and so any idea to the contrary is taken as an absurdity or bigotry. Our anti-discrimination laws tend to be mainly based on something that is inherent to the person: “race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information (http://www.eeoc.gov/employees/coverage.cfm accessed 21.04.2014 @ 2115 EDT).” So if sexual preference is a matter of nature, then it would seem fitting to add it to the list. Though that conflicts with religion which is also on the list. Religion is more than a set of beliefs agreed to be followed by a collection of people in either an organized or disorganized fashion. That could just as surely be a creed and not have to be religious in nature. Atheism is a form of religious faith itself. If God cannot be proven, then the choice is to believe that there is no God. And just as much as a theistic faith defends itself against encroachments on its rights to practice its faith, the atheist faith defends itself against its rights to practice its religious faith (hence the “freedom from religion” and anti-Christianity groups that exist that actively pursue purging society of anything that conflicts with the atheist world-view). Yet the inability for them to prove that God exists does not mean that He does not. It is a leap of faith on their part. So for as much as the atheist, spiritual-but-not-religious, agnostic, humanist, materialist, et cetera-ist believe that they are acting in a more rational way than the theist, they are deluding themselves. In the faith tradition that I hold to, there is a God and He has ordered everything. Atoms are ordered, the cosmos are ordered, nature is ordered, etc. Evolution, the big bang, etc. are not contrary to faith. We like to quote our nation’s founding document stating that we are “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” If there is no creator, from whence do our rights come? Are they granted by a governing authority? For if a right can be created by a government, it stands to reason that it can be taken away by a government. A government that can “bestow” the “right to marry” can then also revoke that “right to marry”? One may support a certain creation of rights or protection of peoples by the government, but that sets the precedent that they can do the same in a matter that

    one does not support. So back to the question of sexual proclivities, our choice or lack thereof, and the order of nature. Nature (and through study: science) bears witness to the natural law/order of sexuality: it takes a sperm and an ovum to create a new human. Two same-sex folks may love each other, but without the intervention of unnatural means, their relationship (their love) can never bear forth new life. Their parts are incompatible for such a thing (but if it were only so simple as a matter of twice two is four since humanity is so much more than a piano key (“Notes from Underground” reference)). The penis and vagina and the complementariness of these sexual organs and their associated organs speak to nature’s order. Even heterosexual sodomy is unfruitful and is just a matter of pleasuring oneself.

    We have to ask ourselves, what is sex for? Is it merely for pleasure, an expression of love, to propagate the species, a combination of these and/or more? The great pagan philosophers reasoned these things out millenia ago. Food tastes good so that we will eat–sex feels good so that we will reproduce. These appetites, however, can become disordered. We as a society years ago decided to divorce child-bearing from sex, choosing to make sex a fruitless action of selfish/mutual pleasure. Even if the act be in love, it is all too often purposefully rendered fruitless.

    We always have a choice as to what to do with our feelings and passions. I know that there are times that I have seen a man and found him attractive and catch myself and choose not to nurture that feeling. I see many women who are attractive and I choose not to nurture sexual urges toward them as well. The feeling (either way) is not bad or good, it is the action that is borne from it. An ordered society works best if we are in control of our passions and not just our sexual passions (tell me if society works best where we pursue greed, power, lust, etc. or if we restrain ourselves out of regard to the other? Is not America very reflective of a society that pursues selfish desire over the other?).

    What is needed in our conversations is compassion. We all struggle (if we choose to try to be chaste, monogamous, what-have-you) with our passions and desires in some way, shape, or form. Instead of condemning one another, we need to help one another. Instead of lying to each other and saying, “it is OK, that is just the way you are,” we ought to be caring enough to say that something is disordered but that we will help each other through it. There is a hypocrisy in the world and in a lot of America. I wonder how many people who point their fingers at homosexuals condemning them have had one night stands? How many sexual partners have they had? We all have disordered appetites, though it would seem that anyone who would suggest order cannot be tolerated. The only thing that cannot be tolerated is intolerance. And most of all, even for as much as the pursuit of it is built into humanity, we cannot tolerate truth–especially if it does not agree with our opinion/decision.

    Read “The Devils” (also rendered as “The Possessed”) by Dostoevsky.

  6. Hi! I just recently signed up for your “Bizzaro Blog” and have received 3 so far. This is the last one I got. I’m pretty sure that Yahoo has screwed up again with allowing things into my inbox. I put you into my contacts list so Yahoo would see that I want your Blog. I’ve tried writing to Yahoo but I don’t know how that will work as I see other people are having problems worse than mine and are not being helped.

    I don’t know if there’s anything you can do on your end or not. Maybe just try sending it to me again. I sure would love getting it again!

    Thank you for your time!

    • I usually only post on Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday. Sounds like you may be getting all of them. If that’s not the answer, I have no idea what to say or how to help, I’m afraid.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *