Alright, more worldplay.

With the virgin birth, its process of eliminating all other virgin births is that Mary is the only supposed birth without sexual connotations.
but, as the article points out, the Bible does not specify anything at all, other than Mary became pregnant.
So because there is no writings in the Bible that suggest anything other than emmaculate conception, we are to assume that the Bible "meant" that Mary was impregnated from a God, without any of the other factors used to discredit the other births.
thats another case of taking the Bible as the literal word of God, instead of using evidence, evidence that the tale is a passed on myth. Although we have all these other stories about conception of saviors, we assume that because the Bible does not flat out say any of these, the story is not plagiarized? How?

It goes back to the myths themselves, the fact they have went thru years and years of manipulation. Do you not acknowledge that the Bible was put together by man, omitting many many different 'gospels'??
Sine we know it to be true that the Bible was a very specificly put together book, how can we know the other factors about things, such as the virgin birth, were simply omitted to give Christianity a more individual feel?