
So what you're saying is that your mind is made up, and you'll just explain
away any differences at being statistically insignificant?


So you'll just explain away any inconsistancies in your "theory" as being
"a special case".


You just equated them.  Re-read your own words.


A study release in 1991 found that 11% of female seagulls are lesbians.


Now, apply this last sentence of your to YOUR theory.  Notice how your are
contridicting observations?


You don't know much math, do you?  The ability to use SAS to determine the
length of the third side of the triangle is fundemental to geometry.


Goals <> postulates.

Again, if one of the "goals" of this "objective/natural morality" system
you are proposing is "survival of the species", then homosexuality is
immoral.