As I said earlier, I knew most here wouldn't appreciate GK's latest. But even in his wildest dreams did he really hope that all the self-absorbed humorless narcissists would show their asses quite this much?

"I am NOT a flamboyant gay!!"

"What's wrong with gay people?!!"

"I am straight, I have no kids and I could give a crap about them!" (my personal favorite)

"Is GK writing tongue in cheek?" (the realization dawns in some)

But there is an element of truth in it - that's why its powerful - damn good work Keillor!

Go back and read the first letter by Zandru (p. 4), then the post by Robert Dunkle (p. 5), also nerdnam’s (p. 3), then GK’s piece again.

GK is conflicted (that’s OK, right?) and takes some shelter from his uncertainty in wryness, satire and irony that is just ambiguous enough that he can avoid being taken to task – not much substance beyond Oh, to be human! (and that’s a little less OK).

Evolution saddled us with strong drives toward systems of mating and parental care that involve, among much else, contractual monogamy - but under conditions which no longer hold. As GK apparently knows, we aspire, shall we say, to more than lifelong contractual monogamy, even if not so eager to admit it.

That is, our beliefs about the way children must be raised stifle adult self-actualization. The tragic truth for all of us is that children actually don’t need one male and one female parent stuck in lifelong contractual monogamy (which seems to be a recipe for an unhappy household); they need healthy attachment to stable, loving figures who will not abandon or abuse them, something entirely different.

GK just needs to take a tip from the straight-shootin’ DurianJoe (p. 4): “Moreover -- and pardon my Colonialese -- frak what Nature wants. If Nature had its way, there would be . . . only the law of the jungle, and . . . .Large men would knock down small men and take their belongings; the weak would starve.”

That is, if Nature has its way, we’ll be stuck with conservatism, capitalism and contractual monogamy. Frack that!

Thanks, I'll check it out.

I hope they offer downloads, not just real time, cause connections here (even ISDN or supposed ADSL) are sloooooowww.

My dearest Mr. Keillor,

I will not "straighten up" for anyone. Not for you, not for *anyone*. I am proud queer man, and I intend to stay that way. I have been in a committed relationship for 18 years with a man whom I love, and we have a "small weird dog" named Olive. We have lots of relationships with lots of children (neighbors, nephews, nieces, and friends) whom we consider Family. We are the best aunties any child could ask for.

The thinly veiled hate which you express here made me want to throw things, and type "excessively rude" words. I wonder why your "excessively rude" words were allowed on the Salon website?

By the way, this country does not accept us. Just ask General Pace, and, for that matter, Bill Clinton. Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Cue the Inspirational House Music,

~Michael

Garrison Keillor wrote:

"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. That's for the kids. It's their show."

"I grew up the child of a mixed-gender marriage that lasted until death parted them, and I could tell you about how good that is for children, and you could pay me whatever you think it's worth." He's suggesting his own childhood led to his messy, self-obsessed private life and successful public life. Just because a marriage lasts until death does not mean it is a perfect environment for children growing up or the participants themselves. This whole thing is a send-up of nostalgia for the '50s. I just wondering where the reference to the 'quaint no Jews allowed' sign on the local PUBLIC swimming pool is.

i laughed all the way through the piece. so true, so true. but then i remember this morning reading that the catholic church will not allow the sacrament to divorced people and those that are divorced are advised to treat each other as brother and sister. that also produced a good laugh from me, an excatholic. but our candidates both right and left are on to their third marriages, and how many for keillor himself. yes, it is tough out there for us all. i am married to my first and only husband with several kids who are now none of the above. so where did we go wrong as role models? we are not yet ready for the jerry springer show but sometime i wonder if that is the sign of things to come and not just a jokefest.

That is, if Nature has its way, we’ll be stuck with conservatism, capitalism and contractual monogamy. J.C. Miller

Exactly! Modern Republicanism is nothing more than social darwinism wrapped in the flag and hung from a cross on Wall Street.

The more important question is: is the correct spelling frak or frack?

This column is patently offensive and brimming with hurtful stereotypes and bizarre gilded fantasies about the past. As a parent who occasionally wears flamboyant clothing (do zebra mumus count?) I'm also personally affronted -- who says you have to be boring to be good parents? What's wrong with polka dots? Sure they're a fashion "don't" but does that somehow impair one's ability to love? (Why would loud clothes mean you don't care about your kids?) My mom used to wear some splashy getups and she cared about me deeply (somehow, despite enjoying her crazy clothes, the love was able to leak through).

Where does this idea come from that to be a "good parent" means putting your personality in a box and locking it away? Why would sacrificing personal happiness (forgetting about your own interests, or staying in a bad relationship for the sake of the kids) make a better home for children?

It's hard to know if Keillor's joking when he's talking about how "back in the day" parents weren't troubled or angry. Excuse me? Clearly he never met my grandparents -- that treasured mixed-gender, life-long marriage he's so fond of -- because they spent the bulk of their lives trying re-create Hell On Earth for each other. Are parents as "smiling, helpess mannequins" something to *aspire* to? What makes straight people any more capable of providing a loving home for children than gay people? Not to name names, but there's plenty of really boring gay couples, and others not-so-boring who have been happily "married" longer than most of my straight friends.

He says of his school visit that "they are better children for having met me." This makes me think his entire column is supposed to be a joke. However if he's seriously saying "It was all so great back then and we're all going to hell 'cause now campy gay men can raise children" then I feel sorry for the small, closed mind he's trapped in.