Letters posted here are associated with the following article:

285
Letters
Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:00 AM

Stating the obvious

Nature doesn't care about the emotional well-being of older people. It's about the continuation of the species -- in other words, children.

The letters thread is now closed.

View:
Tuesday, March 13, 2007 11:15 PM

is he for real?

is this guy for real? honest to god man am i reading some home and garden journal or what. i thot salon was supposed to be a left-liberal sorta place. Whats this crap about parents in the background. What should the parents do, roll over and die just because they have spawned a few kids. Get a grip, G. Havent u heard about hipster parents, alternadads... they are all the rage these days u know why? bcoz who gives a friggin f... what nature intended for us, the thing is what we make of life ourselves. no one needs to let go of rich emotional, creative, romantic, adventurous lives just because they have kids. If kids have a problem with this, they should just grow up.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007 11:31 PM

What an interesting discussion!

"Nature" only cares about "breeding adults"; both infants and elderly are usually at risk of death in the event life sustaining resources become scarce. (check out a few PBS documentaries on either animals or humans)As far as nature is concerned, once you are no longer breeding you are toast (check out the sex life of salmon or day flies, most efficient examples).

It is only the "cultural" habits of our various species (and abundance of resources)which foster long life. In most human cultures, elderly people have been honored and venerated, but in hard times the elderly get sent out to sea on a boat or left in the snow.

I too am a child from Mr. Keillor's era and in his defense, life was so different then, slower, expectations were so different of all generations and people than they are now. While I am happy Mr. K had a happy time, I would hate to go back to the 50's or earlier (this is the generation of GWB!!) There were horrible taboos about everything and we were much crueler to each other than now in personal ways. Homosexuality didn't exist, divorce and marriage outside your religion (in some cases sect specific), race or ethnic background "just was not done" and would create horrific ramifications in the family or community. Pregnant girls were sent away to give birth in shame. Beating children and women was normal. Birth control and abortion were illegal or not available. Racial segregation and discrimination were institutionalized and NORMAL in many parts of the country and white males ruled the world with a heavy hand (alas they still do).

I have heard too many horror stories from gay and lesbian friends about the agonies in admitting their sexuality...for heaven's sake one's developing sexuality is usually relished and enjoyed certainly by the individual, if not society. Why should young gay and lesbian kids be made to feel ashamed of their natural development? It makes no sense.

As to marriage and parenthood, why anyone would want to be married is beyond me, marriage is hard, regardless of genders and is not for the faint of heart! Parenthood, too, is hard and I would only recommend it as one way to grandparenthood, which is where I want to live the rest of my life! Happy to be in 2007, sure hope there is 2008+. wild and crazy gramma ps, David Elder's piece is priceless!

Tuesday, March 13, 2007 11:38 PM

I don't get it...

I'm a gay dad who grew up loving Garrison Keillor. What is he saying with this article? I doesn't even seem internally consistent.

He calls the view by mainstream America of gays as stereotypical, and then admonishes us gay parents based on that stereotype? And chartreuse pants? Who thinks we wear chartreuse pants? Is that supposed to be funny? Is it ironically out-of-date? stereotyped? clever? anything?

And, yes, of course, there's the glaring hypocrisy. He obviously disagrees with his own point, since his own child is being raised in a very non-traditional household.

If I understood this article, I'm afraid I'd be offended by it, but out of nostalgia for a man I used to find charming and funny, I'm going to just shake my head and back out of the room.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007 11:59 PM

Editors Correction:

We're sorry to say that there was a mix up in the editing room. Due to an odd electrical accident, the details of which are too baroque to discuss here, the minds of Andy Rooney and Garrison Keillor were switched. We thought we would proceed ahead as normal, figuring the audience couldn't tell one yammering old honkey for another, but as it turns out senility is distinctly individual in its expression.

Meanwhile, Andy Rooney is on CBS right now in the midst of a droning monologue on Minnesota's fondness for ludefisk, and we are reviewing the backcatalogs of Judge Reinhold, Kirk Cameron and others to discover how this event might be reversed. Thank you for your patience.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:17 AM

Will Rogers Meets Ann Coulter

Dear God, this is a foul piece of lazy, solipsistic writing. There is one ideal childhood experience, and oddly enough it matches that of Mr. Keillor's. A magic age of lifelong marriage (and monogamy!) in which everyone has a garage and a yard. Eesh. And little immigrant children benefit from hearing about his mythical childhood out on the range. Uh huh.

Gays, you're allowed to have children, as long as you tone down the Bette Midler impersonations. That's fair, isn't it?

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:23 AM

absorbent, not self-absorbed.

Oh Garrison,

I was born in St Paul and grew up in its suburbs, a child of the type of selfless parents you extol. Those parents, Catholic sloggers with a Puritan work ethic, dutifully drove me to school every morning past all the nice houses on Summit Avenue. So I know where you're coming from, really. I get it.

I'm not so humorless as to miss the deliberateness of your curmudgeonly shtick. You've really topped yourself, though, lamenting the perfect heterosexual monogamous past that never was, and using gay men as a foil for self-absorption, particularly given your own outsize accomplishments and corresponding ego! I only fear that some of your readers will miss how firmly your tongue is planted in your cheek.

I've since fled to godless liberal homosexual San Francisco, where every man -- especially formerly Midwestern gay men -- takes himself way too seriously and sees fit to write letters to the editor when a favorite columnist twists his nipple. However, few of those men wear chartreuse pants or can afford a fancy striped sofa; given rents around here they're probably sleeping on it. Fashionable gay men with children? Only if the latest couture collection includes Pirate Booty crumbs and spit-up formula.

Most Active Letters Threads

527

The crazy, irrational beliefs of Muslims

Tom Friedman explains the real problem: stupid Muslims think the U.S. is about war and aggression.
430

The face of rotted Washington

Evan Bayh demands more debt-financed war - fought by others - while boasting that he's a stern "deficit hawk."
189

Bigotry wins in Switzerland

By voting to ban the construction of minarets, Switzerland apes the most extreme intolerance in the Muslim world
131

Facebook, the mean girls and me

At 34 years old, I finally feel like a popular seventh-grader. How sad is that?
103

Polanski moves from jail to ski chalet

The rapist director is granted bail, and one of his most vocal apologists celebrates

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon