9. Never forget that AIDS is still with us. For that reason, if no other, promiscuity needs to be a thing of the past. Unfortunately, if we don't want it running through our group, we'll have to say goodbye to you if you ignore this fact and we find out.
   
   
   
   

   Some will view this as a nosy limitation on their freedom. But one can't expect to enjoy the same level of freedom during an epidemic, and it's about time that we let reality enter the discussion.
   
   Yes, freedom is good, but it must be freedom for all. If each of us is forced to view the others as being members of a high risk group, what results won't be very liberating for any but the most foolhardy. How sadly ironic if we should found ourselves uneasy at the prospect at dating those we met, in a shrine to the goddess of love!
   
   A little freedom is sacrificed in the short run because a greater degree of freedom is non-sustainable. I've been to enough funerals, anyway, thank you, and don't feel the need to go to any more. Even one friend lost this way, would be far too many.
   
   This is yet another reason why we don't welcome gay or bisexual men to the group. There is an adage about the sexual spread of AIDS - 'tis better to give, than to recieve. Meaning that those who are taking in bodily fluids (women, in a heterosexual context) are at far higher risk for infection than those expelling said fluids. Viruses don't swim, so they can't buck a strong current. However, gay and bisexual men often play both roles in the course of their sex lives, resulting in the disease spreading far more rapidly in their community. This gruesome topic will be explored in a epidemiological model which will appear on our site later on, under the title "It's not the wrath of God, it's just probability".
   
   This is a hard one to solve. One thought that comes to mind is that they might try to divide themselves by sex role - some always being the one penetrated and some always being the one doing the penetration - the difference being marked, perhaps, by a placement of earing, or tatoo. If this was honored, the spread would rapidly drop off as those infected would be far less likely to infect each subsequent partner. But getting people to honor this and not occasionally break roles "just this once" might be difficult.





10. In general, that sort of defines an attitude we have toward personal freedom - that it can only be taken to the level at which it can be maintained without loss of equality. Which brings us to that all-too-90s topic of the menage a trois. Our point of view is that they should be scorned, for this very reason.
    
    
    
    

    It is not that consensual polyamory bothers us. However, double standards in the construction of that polyamory will, very much. In particular, the "harem" arrangement, where one (usually male) has multiple mates who date only him will NOT be considered socially acceptable in our group, nor will any similarly gender unbalanced arrangement.
    
    There are only so many prospective mates out there. For one to have more than one, another must have none, and that undermines his freedom. By being with a number of mates, the former has clearly indicated that he doesn't wish to be alone, as, in their own way, have his mates. Thus, they stand in violation of the weak form of the golden rule.
    
    
    
    

    "Do not do to others, what you would find hateful if done to yourself".

    
    
    A religion does have to stand for something, as we've said. That particular rule will be one of the things we stand for. But is this a proper subject for a religion to concern itself with? Yes, clearly it is, given who we worship and how.
    
    
    Desires become unreasonable when they are unsustainable, and oppressive when that unsustainability is maintained at the expense of an unconsenting other.
    
    Each, in knowingly taking a course of action that will force an unwanted loneliness on another, has done so whether the act is "direct" or "indirect", even if the identity of the loser of this game of sexual musical chairs has not yet been identified. It is enough to know that there will be one. It is on this basis that we declare the desires of the holder of the harem to be unreasonable. The attainment of his wishes in this area force others to settle for far less than he feels he should not do without. He is pushing for an unbalanced, inequitable arrangement.
    
    This is not self-assertion, this is gross selfishness, a hateful reminder of the "winner takes all" mentality of the (elder) Bush era. As a RELIGIOUS group (in case anyone forgot), we will not condone a lack of compassion like this. In particular, as worshippers of the goddess of love, we can't accept something that leaves others crying out to her for the relief of their pain, if we are to consider ourselves her servants.
    
    
    This is another rule which we feel should be universal and which we will attempt to propogate. For us, it takes on a religious dimension, but the considerations that lead us to it are of an ethical and not theological nature.
    
    If the gender balance should drastically shift, in some sense, the logic of this argument will be altered. However, praise the gods and hope for their continued care, this is not anticipated. (Say, due to a war that kills off most of the men, for example, or due to a spike in the infection rate in childbirth, as bacteria present mutate into disinfectant resistant forms, that together decimate the female population. Yes, these sorts of things have happened. But, failing the presence of this kind of unusual situation, the dictates of morality on this issue are as clear as they are nontheological in origin.)

Let us go on.