pretty rich to hear you call others "humorless nimrods"! LAUGH. Unbunch your panties and Chill out!

I'm a gay parent. I have a great sense of humor. Up until the other day, I had held Mr. Keillor in very high esteem. I was offended by this article and I didn't think it was one bit funny. And I said so. So I must be stupid??????????????? Just too dense to "get it"? Just another dopey liberal with no sense of humor???

This is the reason I usually don't read these letters. Just too many hateful people out there with nothing thoughtful to say.

Tiff,

Please enlighten us with other examples of satire you've had trouble extracting humor out of.

I think it is an example of idiocy to get so worked-up about an essay when the foundation of your ire is misguided. I would not give this essay a pulitzer, I'll be clear about that. However, your lack of understanding as to the satirical elements of GK's writing led to your being offended--it wasn't what was written. It's like being angry that Milton could possibly suggest eating children.

I am a gay man who is the father of an incredible 14 year old girl. I found Keillor's homophobia dressed up as just so much "folksy charm" incredibly insulting.

First, he's wrong about acceptance. There are plenty of places in our country where being a gay man isn't just not acceptable - it can be downright dangerous to the point of losing one's life. (I also love it when a straight man talks about what it's like to be gay. It'd be amusing if it weren't so idiotic.)

Characterizing all gay men as "...sardonic fellows with fussy hair who live in over-decorated apartments with a striped sofa and a small weird dog and who worship campy performers and go in for flamboyance now and then themselves" sounds like something out of a 1950's 'gay panic' movie. What gay people does he know, anyway?? I'm not saying that there are not gay folk like this... but there are hetero folk like this too. Stereotyping like this is easy, and is therefore indicative of a writer who really doesn't want to think too much.

We do want to be accepted as couples and fathers. I am part of a couple and am definitely a father - a good one at that - so I have done my part. What else it will take, however, is for people to stop writing homophopic drivel that reduces the image of all gay men to a bunch of well-dressed irresponsible narcissistic drama queens. How incredibly offensive.

""Everyone had a yard, a garage, a female mom, a male dad, and a refrigerator with leftover boiled potatoes in plastic dishes with snap-on lids"."

Seriously? Are you kidding? How the hell does GK know what "everyone" had? Everyone, whenever the hell it was that GK was a kid, definitely did not have that.

From a retarded premise flows this entire retarded column. Salon and Garrison, I am embarassed for you. Sheesh.

Just kidding. But seriously, I think a lot of people are projecting their own neurosis on Keillor.

Gay folks: It's not like he called you names or advocated the murder of all of you. In fact, he qualified his stereotypical description of gay men by calling it (wait for it....) stereotypical.

That description of the gay man is as antiquated as the other nostalgic ramblings he seems to revere in the essay. Though, I'm sorry gay folks, there are gay men like that out there. Just like there are black folks who are thieves, Mexicans who are lazy, Chinese people who are good at math, and white people who are the epitome of the evil White Devil (we've all felt the white supremacist patriarchal homophobic mind-fuck, even the pale ones...) Don't even get me started on the gold-diggin hussy and her manwhore companion who come in all races, religion, and creeds. The problem, is, when you use these kind of stereotypes without acknowledging that they are stereotypes. And also gay folks, like your darker hued brethren, you should just kind of own it.

(I just want to say... I love fried chicken and watermelon...and stealing. And what, white Devils!)

Unlike Keillor's religious right counterpart, I don't beleive he is truly advocating for the good old days. So there's no need to remind him that I had to give my seat up to white folks on the bus back then, or that the moms in those wholesome homes were probably doped up on little helpers.

Besides, were those comments even "homphobic." I don't think he's scared of Gay people. Or even hates them. In fact, he seems to speak fondly of the chatreuse clad minions stealing a little kids thunder.

The questions in my post were rhetorical. Duh. Just because I don't find this article funny and I am offended by it does NOT mean I don't understand it.

I won't repeat myself a third time.

Those of you droning on about how the rest of us are just "missing" it- it being such brilliant, witty satire- must be pretty hard up for quality reading. The guy is not funny. He is a tedious old bore.

I'll bet you also found The Da Vinci code to be amazing literature for the ages. Try getting some taste.

Mr. Keillor,

I always found it surprising - even suspect - that as such a central figure in the nostalgia industry, a field full of conservatives pining away for the good old days, you could be such a beacon of moderate (and even left-leaning) political views. I have for many years while listening to "A Prairie Home Companion" enjoyed a little frisson when you said something which I knew was making all the conservative Republicans out there squirm a bit in their seats.

However, your recent Salon piece has changed my opinion of you forever - you ARE the anti-gay bigot I long suspected you to be.

You wrote:

"Back in the day, that was the standard arrangement. Everyone had a yard, a garage, a female mom, a male dad, and "

"And now gay marriage will produce a whole new string of hyphenated relatives ... and I suppose we'll get used to it."

"The country has come to accept stereotypical gay men -- sardonic fellows with fussy hair who live in over-decorated apartments with a striped sofa and a small weird dog and who worship campy performers and go in for flamboyance now and then themselves. If they want to be accepted as couples and daddies, however, the flamboyance may have to be brought under control. Parents are supposed to stand in back and not wear chartreuse pants and black polka-dot shirts."

These statements are so patronizing and offensive to me that I do not even know where to begin to address them. Dan Savage, however, makes a good start - why don't you have a look at his article?:

http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2007/03/fuck_garrison_keillor

Claiming, in retrospect, that your piece was satire, or something of the sort (the standard retreat when a hypocrite such as you is called on the carpet) will do you no good, Sir. You are unmasked.