Its not a deal breaker but Im not going to date any gorillas either.

I agree. Im not really sure what they mean by "missing link" anymore. I think that term is somewhat outdated now. I think its just easier to say and people are familiar with that terminology. Its less obtuse then saying "more evidence to support what we already realize is factual data link".

Atheists are better in bed. Just giving you a head's up so to speak.

Yes I didn't mean to imply that someone should be overtly aggressive or attack or pull a knife or shoot someone because they wont take no for an answer in a bar situation.

I just meant that women deal with this all the time when men sometimes have too much to drink and they might overextend their welcome in a pub environment (or anywhere really)

I would refer to that as unwanted flirtation but it really can occur with any gender at any time. The best way to handle it is a firm but polite "no thank you."

But then if it persists, probably something else needs to be done. I know when Ive been in a bar, I have had to tell the bartender and they "chat it up" and then it usually ends there. They just threaten to escort them out normally or cut them off.

Same thing.

No I didnt mean to imply killing someone. But how many times do you have to warn an overly aggressive male in a bar? Same situation isn't it?

Hmm. It seems context should be relevant here. Also maturity and one's sense of self confidence. If a gay male approached a straight one, he may not know exactly and could only be testing the water. No reason to attack him or become enraged. All you need to do is take it as a compliment and politely let him know that you aren't interested.

Then if he were to persist for some reason, I could see you becoming much more upset. Women also become frightened by men who cant take no for an answer. I understand that. That would not mean you are homophobic. It means you are straight and the guy has been warned.

Well that is what I was trying to get at. If the majority of sexually related crimes are actually committed by heterosexuals, then well, that really cant be used as any kind of excuse or basis for which to condemn them.

Correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t most sexually based offenses i.e. rape, child predation, sexual assault committed by heterosexuals?

I hear ya. Its always assumed that every little girl on the planet cant wait for her wedding day and picking out the dress and yadayada. This may be true for some women but clearly this is not the case with all. Weddings just always struck me as being VERY stressful times.

You arent alone in that. Im sure you could find a man who would be okay with a smaller ceremony if his family has to come. You just set limits on it. Say, immediate family on both sides and thats it.

I personally dont feel I need a contract with the state to validate my love for another.

Oh, I know! Okay I didnt correlate the B----in. Sorry.

Hmm. Im at a loss.

I have no problem with gays/lesbians. It looks pretty interesting to me. Im sure for many thousands of years, bi-sexuality was the normal state of affairs. Spartans? Romans? I feel sad when I hear people condemning them to hell. What is so gosh darn terrible about a loving, committed relationship between two people of the same gender? Ive never understood the aversion to it. Is it better to be in a horrible, abusive heterosexual relationship?

I guess im ignorant also. I dont believe it had reached sexual maturity yet and had not reproduced. Its not a man. Lucy was 3.2 million years old and IDA is 47 million years old to try to put it into some kind of perspective. Ida is at the very beginning of primate evolution. Lucy was essentially the breaking off point into bipedalism etc...

From the IDA site:

"There's something strikingly familiar about Ida's skeleton. That's because, like us, Ida is a primate. She lived around the time that primates split into two major groups. The prosimians are the non-human branch who have survived mainly as modern lemurs. The anthropoids are the other branch - from which humans evolved.

Ida's skeleton has some early anthropoid traits. These foreshadow physical features which later appear in monkeys, apes, and of course, humans. So although Ida was a primitive primate who lived 47 million years ago, her anatomy has remarkable similarities to our own."

Which one are they violating?

There is a website for it also:

revealingthelink.com

Pretty cool! I think the History Channel is also running a program on it. Its quite a significant find at 47 million years to be that complete. I think Lucy is a little over 3, right when bipedalism was first beginning to show up and we were breaking off so this is extraordinary. Thanks for posting!

Attractive and a smarty.

Catholicism and the Roman Catholic church is considered the "least removed" from paganism according to the beliefs of many evangelicals and protestants. Historically, this is quite accurate. The catholic church attempted to bridge that gap. Thats one part of it anyway and also what smiless was discussing. So there is quite a few reasons.

Because its fun. You also learn through disagreement. Its foundational to the scientific method in fact.

It might feel different to you based on your height and weight. If a large 250 lb man attacks you, it may not have the same effect but probably it will startle him just long enough for you to scream or get away or somehow draw attention to yourself.

Its the natural way of things.