I have two nits to pick, one with each comic. One is worth reading, the other not; I'll let you decide which is which.
A then Bconversation across the wall.
Yes, I just made all that crap up, but I think it's true, and this is not an exception that proves the rule.
Bzzzt. See the comments for links to multiple Family Circuses that prove me wrong.
Comic 2: Perhaps this is a small piece of social commentary hidden inside a Simpsons joke disguised as a parody of a comic strip, but the strip is incomplete without being able to see Skull's reaction.
What's the joke? That the kid has seen the Simpsons and mispronounces homosexuals? That the kid is a homophobe (or has homophobic parents)? Perhaps both?
Seeing as having homosexual parents is nothing to be concerned about, I would expect a "Whoa! Kid! WTF!" look on Skull's face. Of course this is part of my world-view; perhaps it is not part of Scott's. In which case I would still expect to see Skull's face, and it would register a beatific "Ain't I teaching him well!" expression -- but I do not think this is the case.
But, since we can't see his face, we have NO IDEA what the intention of the joke is, which, in my mind, is a cowardly thing to do, and should have prevented the strip from being published.
Update: Commenters are right: There is an additional interpretation, and that is that both strips are commentary on the Christian nature of Family Circus. Fair enough, but Skull's reaction is still critical to the success of that panel.