"Environment first. People second."

Since you're such a special snowflake, unconnected to the environment, why don't you catch a breeze and float over the rainbow, where pretty little bluebirds fly?

You're a critter and an unwinged one at that, so you're not just stuck in the environment. You are the environment. And the environment is you.

One would think with money so tight, we'd stop bombing two countries. *

I guess not.

Mayhem is too much fun.

* Make that three with McCain.

"...Iran the holy sainted peaceful country that all Salon comrades want to move to..."

You should have added a "CRUSH! KILL! DESTROY!"

Or, at least, "ALL YOUR LIBERAL BASES BELONG TO US!"

Or, if you're going to mix insults, at least do so with gusto, as in, "...that all Salon Nazi Hun comrades kitty-killas want to move to..."

The characters are men and marriage obsessed.

Gotta have a man.

Gotta have a man.

Gotta have a man.

I once knew a woman who asserted that she was a strong, independent feminist. Then, when her man moseyed, she was as weepy and clingy as a 14-year old just smitten by her one true love. Saying you're independent don't make it so.

I also like what Wanak70 wrote.

Live where you work.

And shrink before you're shrunk.

John McCain (and millions of others, including Saint R. Reagan) deliver to their offspring. It's just that with McCain and other overseers of blended families, there's more acrimony. At least with Laird's life, the bed-wandering adults managed to still like each other.

I actually prefer "group marriage" as a descriptor for people who remarry than "blended families." It's more accurate and it also highlights the hypocrisy of those who intone, "one man, one woman," while married to yet another man or yet another woman.

Way back yonder, I had a friend who lived at Walden, which was (and is?) an early free-love/polyamory commune.

"What was it like?" I asked.

"Drama, drama, drama," she said.

No matter how much one might want free love/polyamory, the tendency to pair-bond will nullify the agreement that everyone has everyone. This is likely what happened to Laird's folks.

I don't see much difference between what Laird's folks did and what people who divorce and remarry did. The big difference is that the divorcing and remarrying folks skulk more. So, if you're going to be indignant, then save some of that for the hundred million or so folks who divorce and remarry. And save some more for those who don't divorce and remarry, but remain in a loveless relationship and heap that lovelessness upon their kids.

I admire your consistency. I'm afraid that some Salon readers will be titillated by this piece. Unfortunately, Salon's editors might hope for such titillation.

I see what transpired between the four parents in the essay as a more open version of what happens in every other American family. Like you, I think that a promise is a promise and one should suck it up. Likewise, I think that a married couple who have nothing to say to each other and quietly loathe each other are also liars: they broke the promise.

Congrats on your nearly three decades of fidelity!

"My parents were married for over 32 years. My current in-laws: 53 years. My former in-laws: 42 years. My maternal grandparents: 41 years. My paternal grandparents: 39 years. My brother: 25 years. My brother-in-law: 29 years. All of these are either on-going or ended with the death of a beloved partner."

Statistically, that's steaming.

And not in a good way.

"And if you’re really serious about community living I don’t see why it’s always about sex."

Well, here's a guess. Sex is cement. Straight people hump way more than is necessary for procreation. And some older straight people hump when procreation is no longer possible. Likewise, gay people. But sex cements us so that we don't crumble when bills pile up and one person's car is crumpled in a 9-car pile up. So, we hump in communities to sustain the community.

Unfortunately, that very humping can also fracture communities.

You only post about polyamory.

That's what worries me about polyamory on a personal level: it becomes everything.

Of course, if there was a poster who only posted about garlic pickles, I'd be equally unsettled.

"It is drama and more drama under the pretense of greater emotional understanding. Sure it is no worse than divorce or abusive families, but it is MUCH more likely degenerate to that level."

Yep.

Okay, so you teach classes about polyamory: it's your work. You live it. You've got a polyamory website. At Salon, you post about nothing else.

Well, I've had enough of this topic this morning. I'm going out to garden. I suggest you do the same. Plunge your fingers into something other than polyamory. Dirt is good.

Polar bears are drowning because of gay marriage!

Folks will always use you. Me. Everyone.

The polyamory folks used you and your essay to advocate for more, more, more.

The spurned folks used you and your essay to rail at those who wanted more, more, more.

There was even a homo-bigot who used your essay to blame gays for yet another thing.

I'm guessing that you responded expecting your readers to reply as plushly as they posted, but folks always have their own agendas and your words were just their opening.

You wrote: "I know that a lot of people would like to get away from this, and maybe in the distant future (and gee, I hope I am dead by then!), men will get pregnant and gay couples will be able to have biological children with each other."

So, you'd rather die than see gay people enjoy genetic-connected children? I'd always thought of your voice as embodying goodness. Maybe you just miswrote. Or maybe you'd really rather die than see two lesbians coo over a child to whom they'd both donated DNA.

Is that all it takes for you to wish for death?