Not everyone of Keillor's age or those like me who are older grew up in the female mom, male dad family. My own was a female mom, female grandmother family because the father left us to fend for ourselves, a not uncommom occurance. Later there was a step-father, which brought many of the familiar problems along with some solutions to financial probems.

Others were dealing with their lives in the best ways possible; just as they are now.

Children need love and care. So do old people.

That is obvious to me.

I'm aghast at Garrison's blatant sterotyping and homophbia. Boy, did he get this one wrong. Dan Savage said it all in his rebuttal on the Stranger.com's blog (entitled, appropriately enough, fuck Garrison Keillor); I recommend Garrison be forced to read it and respond in order to keep his post at Salon.

Chartreuse, small dogs and striped sofas? That's supposed to be what, funny? It's not--those comments are insulting, demeaning and homophobic. It's like saying black people might be accepted as good parents as long as they turn down the volume on that gangsta rap and stop committing so many crimes, or saying women might be taken more seriously if only they'd start dressing like men, or behaving like men. Note to Keillor: don't confuse Jonathan Adler on "Top Design" with the oh, 1 million or so gay parents in Anytown, USA, who typically wear jeans, khakis, and button-down shirts.

Who in the HELL Is Garrison Keillor to determine what gay men need to do in order to be accepted as parents? I need advice from a twice-divorced, thrice-married idiot like Keillor just because he happens to be straight?! Puh-lease. That'll be the day.

I'm also disappointed in Salon. What tripe!

Sincerely,

Andrew Roth

after reading this offensive bilge, I encourage all to look at Alex Witchel's profile of Gregory Maguire in the 3/11 NYTimes Magazine. Maguire, author of a dozen childrens books, and the novel "Wicked" has adopted 3 children from "third world" countries, as infants. These kids have a magical upbringing, despite the fact they have 2 daddies and some narrow minded bigots shoot dirty looks at them.

Dear Editor

I would like to reply by stating what was obvious to me when I read this article.

To me it was obvious that the author was stating that homosexuals should not marry or have children.

After reading Keillor's apology I realise this was not the intended message, but it was certainly the message I received.

In no way was it obvious to me that this article was tongue in cheek, as Keillor states in his apology.

I would expect a professional writer to be able to better communicate their intent and a professional humorist

to be able to pull off tongue in cheek.

Would the Editor of the Salon please be so kind as to edit Garrison Keillor and be sure to inform him

when he has overstepped the line next time.

Thank you

Amy Illingworth

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

People need to learn to read. This article might be a bit anti-divorce, but it's hardly anti gay-marriage. Mr. Keillor is quite clear that he is talking about "stereotypical" homosexual men, not real ones. Look up the word "stereotype" and try to tell me that he misuses it. This is typical low-key Keillor, saying that the world was once different, and now it's changing, and that's okay.

Okay, I haven't taken Salon seriously since the late Ninties, but wow, are the editors really expecting the right-wing hypocrites to crack open their wallets and put their Charg-A-Plate information into this new fangled computer machine? I doubt it.

I know what I like to read, and it's not the mind-farts of adultering has-beens dreaming about the non-existant good ole' days.

Good luck with raising your membership price!

Signed,

Proud gay therapy patient of a 'Traditional, Mixed-Gender' household.

For all of you who are "offended" by GK's piece, please answer one simple question for me. SO WHAT? You make the charge as if your being offended rises to the level of a human rights violation. Or is this simply your way of insuring all ideas meet the criteria of political correctness as prescribed by your particular camp? Frankly the whole idea that all ideas must be "offense free" before being publicly expressed is a bit ridiculous and smacks of McCarthyism. In fact I would venture to say that no matter what camp you land in on the gay marriage issue, you are going to offend someone or even worse, an entire group! So then what? Let me go out on a limb and postulate that in a pluralistic society, people are going to be offended at some point. In fact I would venture to guess that every human being that has ever been conscious enough to know their own name has been offended at some point in their lives. Again I ask, SO WHAT? If society is ever to move forward, we need to be able to dialogue openly, honestly, and freely with out resorting to the suppression of ideas with the offensive charge. Gee, I hope this doesn’t’ offend anyone……

I have always thought that this pompous bore-- neither funny nor wise nor a good stylist--was a crypto-Fascist and now his writing increasingly bears that out.

This is one of the most embarrassing columns I have read in years. His ideas about gay men seem to have been formed by THREE'S COMPANY.

Time for a quick disappearance a la Ambrose Bierce. Or -- given his provenance -- a tragicomic encounter with the ol' wood-chipper.

Let me point out that nature doesn't care about the well-being of children, either. So if the argument holds, then the best, most "natural" arrangement would be ongoing generations of teen moms, producing the most offspring in the least amount of time.

I am also the product of a heterosexual parents who after 50 years of marriage have still not parted. It didn't prevent me from an unsuccessful marriage of my own and a lifetime of anti-depressants. My sibling has been completely unable to sustain a relationship, and has two very dysfunctional kids.

So big deal.