Smith

I don't know why you like to over-complicate this every time I mention it. I talk to them nearly daily and have done a fair share of TICS and appeals over the last 2 years. I have a fairly good idea how it "actually" works on a practical level. All that above is encompassed in the FBI's system that I referenced and usually when there is a denial or delay it is because they verify identity through DL and names consistency. Sometimes those don't match up or there is a discrepancy and thus the waiting for another agency to clarify or verify status. Birth state is checked through the FBI's system to clarify name issues and other problems that arise. Some states don't respond as quickly as other's according to TBI/TICS agents I've actually talked to .

They run thought the FBI's system and you're birth state. Not always but some states like Illinois and California can sometimes take longer. I have a feeling some states don't rush themselves to return the info. Especially if you have a common name. If they are waiting for another agency it usually means you name flagged and they are checking with you're home state our the agency that listed the original issue. Usually gets cleared up fairly quickly and if not usually in appeal. In most cases I've they get it cleared they will make a note on you're name so it doesn't keep flagging the next times. Probably what is happening since you just relocated.

Strick, we're going in circles. I don't know about you but I've got degree's in Philosophy, History, and finishing masters work in Theology from two different accredited universities and will be starting my doctorate work shortly. I've got plenty of "time" on many aspects of this subject from many different angles. And no I didn't just go to private Bible colleges. Just because I don't embrace all aspects of secular education doesn't mean that I throw the baby out with the bath water. I'm critical and do not apologize for that. BTW - If you accept all opines from accredited schools I guarantee you will be agreeing with me shortly. I've made my points and answered questions ad nauseam. Agree to disagree I'm still going to take you up on those family portraits one of these days!

Strick, I've ignored nothing. I've answered all these a million times and you won't look past the tree you're stuck in to see the forest. What they are talking about is an established State sponsored and mandated religion, ie Anglican Church, thus the preference language in the explanation you keep posting. But I'll make it simple: if all recorded history and tradition has it that 1+1=2, is suddenly legislated to the new 1+2=2 then yes you have fundamentally forced me to change how I do the equation. BTW - it was religious institutions that started higher education as we know it.

I agree with everything you said. However, freedom is not anarchy and no man is an island. Truth is what sets us free from the arrogance of our own selfish minds. We are all subjugated to something. I would rather put my trust in a God who loves me and obey His law of freedom than subjugate myself to my own thoughts and ideology. Kinda like when my 9 yr old insist she knows more than me and what is best for her.

Strick, I don't want to legislate my religious tradition. I want the government not to legislate a minority belief that would affect ALL religious traditions thus establishing the very thing you keep quoting - a government ESTABLISHED religious tradition that encompasses only one minority view. BTW - there is little debate that what you keep quoting is clearly refereing to a state mandated religion, not the exercise of religion within the statr.

Not so much. You are correct in that I can not be forced to marry under the current structure, but we are talking about creating a "law" or legislation that creates special privileges and benefits to a minority class. By definition legislation carries with it the force of law. It would be protected and prosecuted as a "Hate Crime" not as a marriage law issue per se. Good argument. If I had used it in a scientific study, it would be called fact, but then again you like "change".

Strick, as has been covered before - Marriage has been a religious tradition between a man and a women in almost every culture since the beginning of recorded history irregardless of the religious context it was tied to. This is not just about the Christians Biblical tradition. It is one of the few and rare traditions, understandings, and truth's that have transcended culture and time. To be so arrogant as to throw all that out for an experiment of a few that holds no evident benefit for the vast majority of humanity is neither logical, wise, or beneficial.

Keep in mind there are 3 varieties. The VEPR has standard AK front and rear sights. The one pictured above has "fixed/integrated" sights and is not military issue. The Super Vepr is is designed as a hunting rifle and has the integrated sights and a completley different barrel and stock.

They are about the best AK you can get. As has been said they are made by the Molot factory which is who makes the Russian militaries RPK's and better quality military weapons.The VEPR is considered the highest quality and most accurate of the AK family. Slant cut recievers are no big deal as there and plenty of folks who make adapters and stocks that fit them. BTW- the 5.56 and 7.62x39 work with standard AK mags if you add a $2 bullet guide. Just like the Saiga's. The x54's can be modified to take SVD/PSL mags in a similar fashion.

Government mandated marriage would mean dictating to the Church mandates that would carry with it penalty of law if not adhered to. That means that Church's that don't adhere to the "law" would be subject to prosecution under the law for religious "intolerance". Before you say that won't happen, many groups like the Southern Poverty league and other government supported groups and offices have already labeled us as "hate groups". Right now there is little legally they can do. This would give them the legal leverage they need. The health care issue is another and is already showing it's tail. If you are for that then you are for State=Church IMO. Which is ironic because most of the arguments made here for gay marriage is based on "separation of Church and State". I personally have been accused of wanting to dictate my religious beliefs on these poor souls, when in actuality I am advocating that the government stay out of the Church and not subjugate me to the will and beliefs of a very small minority of the population who disagree with me under threat of legal jeopardy.

Its doable. Move to Iran, Palatine, or Afghanistan! Amazing how many places this thread has gone.

HvyMtl - I didn't think it was directed at me. Just answer your question and pointing out the agreement.

So you're saying it's 100% 50/50? Yogism

.... and we've back to blaming Christians. More christiphobia. Just messing with you Mike.

Good try. Not as obviuos as the religiphobeia/christiphobia. This gets old. I have gay friends and know plenty of folks from that persuasion. I have no fear of them, but again - good try.

MOre I look at it, expecially the howling picture looks like a Red Wolf. I would bet it has some mix in it.

by the way there a number who seek counseling and help who are not comfortable with who they are.

I am not bent out of shape, lol. If 10% of the population is gay I don't consider it an abnormality, but rather a variance. That is a lot of people. Being gay is very normal. Ask a gay person. so is alcoholism drug abuse obesity and a number other genetic disorders. ask anyone in prison.

Mike, I equated genetic disorders and abnormalities to homosexuality. Before you get bent out of shape by that, if that stats are right even on the high end and it is 15% of the population is homosexual worldwide, then by those facts alone it is scientifically an abnormality. An no color of eyes, skin color, etc are not abnormalitites they are traits. Are you reading? The main reason I believe is to prevent the very thing you are proposing above. Whether it comes from the religion of gnosticism, aethism, secularism, or any other ism.

I'm not sure what the title means? Did you get married or are you just excited about the class?

Mike? I have no problem with it being genetic like any other of the many problematic genetic disorders and tendencies that people have. That being said it is not an excuse to choose the wrong thing. I feel for the guy who struggles with alcoholism but I don't just condone it because he was "born that way". There are people born with tendencies towards violence and murder. Does that make it OK? Just because a choice is hard does not mean you don't have to make the right one and the deal with the consequences that come with it choosing the wrong one.

Or entire system is built on Christian morality and all legislation is morality. Not sure where you guys think they septate? You can't have your cake and eat it to. You want Constitutional law? You have to accept the precepts it was founded on. If not you destabilize the entire system and no longer have rule of law, but rather rule of anarchy. Or as the rest of the world knows it... Europe.

Couple problems. 1 tax "breaks" and the like were established to support the traditional family as it had been understood was the core of society by providing propagation and a solid traditional family would support and govern itself. Thus relieving the burden on the governments social programs. They've turned that on its head so essentially that's thrown out the window. 2 with the above idea, the state "partnered" with the church to support marriage through various economic incentives. However, as had been stated, that is now turning against that idea. If be fine if the government got out of marriage altogether. Since it is a religious institution to begin with. I don't see that happening, so this will come to a reckoning as OS and Mike pointed out. Somebody will be left in the lurch. Sometimes there its not a win-win. I'd rather a minority miss out than the government to co-pt the church and tyrannically force its will on the vast majority. As the OP referenced about statistics. Again making the stated and church one. We are in more agreement than disagreement. We are just approaching it from different points.

Won't happen. That's not the real issue they are after. As has been said everything they claim they want they can have thought various paths. What they can't have is recognition from churches. That is the real heart of the matter. All the rest is a red herring. IMO As to all the flipant biblical references, it doesn't take a scholar to note that just because the Bible references or accounts for wrong actions is it implied or stated as being condoned. The fact scripture accounts for the imperfections in humanity works towards its credit, not against it. Scripture, properly understood, teaches us to work from imperfection to perfection. It does not assume utopia is attainable or possible in this present life.