Yes, I think that's a good point, and I agree with what you said in your column, Noel: If we don't want to be portrayed as like FLDS, we'd better not act like them--and anyone can adopt a label of "polyamory" to cover practices that most of us would completely avoid. My concern, though, is that no matter what we (of the non-coercive polyamory persuasion) do or don't do, a lot of people who don't understand put so much emphasis on the "poly-" part that they forget about the "-amory" part, so the fallout from the hype about polygamy could really bite us.

This reminds me of something else I've had to deal with about another facet of my worldview, i.e. the fact that I consider myself an anarchist. Totally aside from any debates about the practicality of anarchism (and I know that can go around and around), a lot of people associate anarchists with hell-raising, obnoxious, and/or violent people who feel they can get away with destroying things because, well, it's "for the people" or "against the system." Frankly, I think the people who do things like that shoot all of us squarely in the foot, and I personally really wonder if they are "really" even anarchists--but unfortunately, that's the banner they choose to wave, so those of us who are opposed to wanton destruction but are for some set of principles that we choose to call "anarchism" get the fallout. Again, this isn't about debating the merits or shortcomings of anarchist philosophy, but just an example of how the bad apples tend to be seen as spoiling the bunch, whether they actually do or not.