You appear pretty weird to a lot of us. Being a bisexual Wiccan doesn't help much. Whether you like it or not, mainstream society would defintiely shun your way of life. Now, you can tell me until you're blue in the face that you don't give a shit, but your posts on this board tell another story.

The truth is that nobody of any real significance gives a rip shit about bisexual Wiccans. I certainly dont. If that is your way so be it. However, you have to be able to entertain criticism. After all, Wiccan is pretty silly by most people's standards.

Of course, trying to promote serious religious doctrine is even more silly when you embrace dancing naked in the woods as a divine celebration.

If the U.S. government makes procreation a requirement for marriage, I will stop fighting for equal rights.

Until then, the requirement of procreation has nothing to do with marriage rights.

I didn't say it was. You are distorting what I wrote.
I said:
I stand by that statement. Your distortion of my words can just be chalked up to another one of your dishonest moments, of which we've all seen so many.

Physically no. But the same could be said for any number of mental illnesses. Obviously physical differences isn't the valid criteria.


But there is a biologic imperative to communicate. There is no imperative for singing. Singing, especially very talented singers are just lucky. Like all people can walk and run. But some people are faster than others. All humans can yell, but others are louder than others. All humans need to see, but some can see better than others. Singing and the ability to do it isn't required. Communication is. You are the clearly the one obfuscating.


It was a further example of something that all humans do and how science gives the "why"'s of it. Not obfuscating, you're just showing your lack of comprehending simple concepts.

Quote:

And - once again - what is the scientific support for people possessed of genius intellect and connects it to physiology that indicates humans are supposed to be possessed of genius intellects?

I clearly said there is none. Because genius ISN'T something that humans are supposed to be. But just as some humans also aspire to arbitrary athletic, aesthetic, and weight ideals dictated by society, there are those that struggle to attain as much knowledge as they can. And just as some humans are faster or prettier, some people are smarter. But "genius" as I posted previously is linked to psychological disorders. And there are many abnormal human maladies without "why"'s.

Quote:

You continue to equate "normal" - ordinary, mundane, run-of-the-mill, pedestrian, average - as somthing to ASPIRE to. Aim higher.

No I equate normal to things that aren't broken, disordered, aberrant or f'd up.

which is all well and good

but you are not somebody that has any mandate to be the one who makes those distinctions

(and you still are doing a very poor job of refuting my post about normal/scientific platform - but I'm bored, so I'll just let everybody read your circling of the questions to answer questions you like better.)

Well stop posting sorry ass rebuttals. As if your word, which is rarely correct and often worthless, is any better than my own worthless typings.

What circle. If you clearly demonstrate where I have skipped answering a question, I'll make sure I give it another try. But I don't see why I am required to answer questions when I don't require the same of any one else. So go right ahead and point out a relevant question that you have asked that has no answer. Or else you are once again showing just how FOS you are.
Because your post has nothing to do with the post it talks about. Just more bitchy ass whining. Which you have been doing since I arrived on this web site.

Okay, a few years ago, I taught this to a middle-school science class back when I was substitute teaching. Hopefully you'll get it.

The goal of the scientific method is to develop a HYPOTHESIS and to test this hypothesis. There are two basic outcomes of scientific studies: the hypothesis is supported by what was observed, or the hypothesis is not supported by what was observed. When several experiments have been done testing the same hypothesis and the hypothesis has always been supported, we can call the hypothesis a THEORY. When several experiments have been done to test a theory, and the theory has always been supported, we generally call it a scientific FACT. (This is a bit dumbed down, admittedly, but they were 6th graders)

The problem is that because scientific fact is based only on what has been observed so far, science can rarely truly PROVE anything since we, as humans, can rarely observe EVERY instance of a phenomenon and we cannot truly know what will occur in FUTURE observations.

Okay, I just spent a bunch more time writing about scientific skepticism, but this article explains it much more simply than I did, so I'm pasting it instead:

Can science ever really prove anything?

Yes and no. It depends on what you mean by "prove".

For instance, there is little doubt that an object thrown into the air
will come back down (ignoring spacecraft for the moment). One could
make a scientific observation that "Things fall down". I am about to
throw a stone into the air. I use my observation of past events to
predict that the stone will come back down. Wow - it did!

But next time I throw a stone, it might not come down. It might
hover, or go shooting off upwards. So not even this simple fact has
been really proved. But you would have to be very perverse to claim
that the next thrown stone will not come back down. So for ordinary
everyday use, we can say that the theory is true.

You can think of facts and theories (not just scientific ones, but
ordinary everyday ones) as being on a scale of certainty, from
certainly false to certainly true. Up at the top end we have facts
like "things fall down". Down at the bottom we have "the Earth is
flat". In the middle we have "I will die of heart disease". Some
scientific theories are nearer the top than others, but none of them
ever actually reach it. Skepticism is usually directed at claims that
contradict facts and theories that are very near the top of the scale.
If you want to discuss ideas nearer the middle of the scale (that is,
things about which there is real debate in the scientific community)
then you would be better off asking on the appropriate specialist
group.

From: 1.3: Can science ever really prove anything?

Now here are just a few theories out there about why some people are homosexual: (1) Homosexuals were born that way, it's genetic; (2) Homosexuals have a mental disorder that makes them attracted to their own sex; (3) Homosexuals are made that way by their environments and experiences; (4) Homosexuals are rebelling against society and choose to be that way.

Each of these theories is being tested by various scientists around the world, and have been for some time. Yet this area of inquiry is relatively VERY young, and the data needed to bring any of these theories near the top of that certainty scale is simply not yet available. On the other hand, some of these theories have more support from past research than others. For instance, theories 2 and 4 have found very little support in recent scientific data, while both 1 and 3 have. The predominant theory at this point is that homosexuality is caused by some combination of biology and environment. Yet as I said, there has not been enough data collected on the phenomenon to be able to make a compelling case that homosexuality is caused by genes, biology, or hormones.

So, here's my answer: I'll show you the data that proves homosexuality is based in genes, biology, or hormones when you show me the data that proves it isn't.

You see I'm not gonna bother, I don't have to. Because we have an example of why humans are heterosexual already. We have a reason. Reproduction. We have a facilitation from the external organs to the internal hormones and the glands that excrete them. We have a functions from the self lubrication of the vagina to the hormones that start the breast producing milk at a certain point of pregnancy to the resilience of the skin of the vagina to serve as a birth canal and still not turn into a huge entrance for disease.
Those don't take any more science to "discover" than the fact that humans see out of their eyes and breath into their lungs. Until you can take homosexuality from instinct to facilitation in plain non-theoretical language and give a reason why IT in biological term is normal, abd pedophilia and zoophlilia are abnormal, I really don't give a flying fark what kind of rationalistic gobbledy gook theories you come up with. Because NON of them will be able to connect homosexuality with "normal" in the way that we already KNOW heterosexuality is. And the reason for that is because homosexuality is as much abnormal as any other human f'up. And there are MANY of them. Just differing degrees of f'd up. It doesn't take "data" to prove the obvious in this case.