BaBamSam

That is wonderful! Congrats to them!

Danno, I hope you don't have teenage daughters.

Or sons.

Which is a perfectly fair point. We all do things that aren't generally in our best interest. That is, however, not inviting us to become victims. Nor is it inviting others to assault us. As least it shouldn't be.

The reaction, at least on my part, is to the attitude where nobody mentions what the RAPISTS did wrong. Instead, the victim is the one whose behavior is being scrutinized.

It's no surprise that with this attitude, most rapes go unreported. Look what happens when they don't.

All of this, exactly.

Well said. Your words, unfortunately, will have no impact. But I appreciate you saying it anyway.

I know that he won't even attempt to comprehend it or let it sink in, but the overwhelming sense of nausea forced me to say something.

zero respect for danno as a human. i'm going to consider danno a bot going forth.

Honestly, his comments make me want to vomit. I am going to follow this thought from now on.

Editor's note: Please note this story contains graphic language.

(CNN) -- Two high school football players were convicted Sunday in an Ohio rape case that gained worldwide attention through, and then focused on, social media.

In a trial that divided the football-crazed Rust Belt town of Steubenville, Trent Mays, 17, and Ma'lik Richmond, 16, were found guilty of raping a drunk 16-year-old girl.

The case attracted the attention of bloggers -- and even the loosely organized hacking group, Anonymous -- who questioned everything from the behavior of the football team to the integrity of the investigation.

Judge Thomas Lipps announced his decision after reviewing evidence presented over four days of testimony in the case against Mays and Richmond, who were tried as juveniles.

Mays was also found guilty of disseminating a nude photo of a minor.

The full article (warning for some graphic imagery and language): http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/17/justice/ohio-steubenville-case/index.html

You should fill out your timeline so we can know what country your fiance is from - it makes a difference with advice as all embassies are different!

Also, you don't submit the I-134 with the I-129F petition, but you submit it after the USCIS stage and when it has progressed to the embassy stage. Check out the wicked guides on here for detailed information.

We spent so much time talking that when we were finally in person that we already learned practically everything about each other. It was a really solid start to a marriage.

Also, I enjoyed having the bed to myself and not having to constantly pick up after my husband. Oh, those were the days...

Both of us are very content to have our own beds when we're apart. We love sleeping together when we're together...but it is so nice when it's just you in a bed to nest and spread out however you'd like!

If she is so drunk that she cannot give consent, then yes. If she is so drunk that she can't fight off, then yes. If she is tipsy and gives willing consent (read: not coerced after she initially said "no"), then no.

Thanks for your advice every one. Does any one know then, how quickly id be able to take my test and start driving? Do i need to wait for my adjustment of status thingy? Whats the longest I coudl expect to not be able to drive for?

As soon as you have your social you are eligible to apply for your driver's permit, I believe. You definitely don't have to wait the 3+ months until you have your work permit and such.

If you are 21+, you will go to the DMV and pass a written test (multiple choice and pretty easy), pass a vision test to prove you can see, and then you'll get your examination permit, which allows you to drive with a licensed adult in the passenger seat (who is not intoxicated). After at least three months on that permit, you test for you provisional license which lets you be unsupervised while driving for a year and then you can test for your full license. (source).

It is much cheaper to learn in the US, but I believe the UK is much more difficult and, therefore, a bit better at "preparing". My fiance is going to take lessons in the UK and then get his license in California, but California is easier/faster than NJ, I believe.

I believe K3 has been discontinued, but either way it would make no sense to jump ship now and start over. It's hard to wait, but the waiting is almost over.

I usually say "Pray"! but I have to be sensitive if you have any religion. So pardon me.

Just wanted to say thank you for this! It shows a great deal of respect and appreciation

Just to clarify, when I said every child have a mother and father I of course referred in a biological sense

and that is what makes that union decreed by nature and nearly every major faith as the unique relationship which life and society is based on.

To hear some of you folks talk it's like you are under the impression that the man+women+child... just developed at random and "it could have been any combination."

YOu can make up new definitions to what constitutes a marriage if you choose but find for me a dictionary or Law dictionary that defines marriage as anything except what the whole of Western civilization has known it as.... the best you can do is find some recently written text which not only changes the essential definition but then must veer into some open ended definition due to the certainty that it will keep changing now.

Thank goodness words never change their meanings /sarcasm.

When I say the word "children" what does that mean?

If I say, well Sam adults are great and all but they just aren't children, does that mean I hate adults or that adults are necessarily lesser than children?

It simply means to call 35 year old man a child, changes the definition.

Marriage nearly universally means the joining of man and women. In western Culture is almost always one man and one woman.

To claim two men joined in love is equal to a man in a women suggests you don't yet appreciate the "roll" of marriage in society.

You are thinking only in the most hedonistic terms of -two people fulfilling each other.

Every child has a mother and father, that three point connection is unique and special and it's worth protecting.

You would seriously risk the foundation of our society so that 3% of the population can call themselves married by law?

I think you are friggin nuts and time will prove me right.

We have different definitions of marriage. But I'd love to have a marriage "roll" if there's butter on it please.

Now if we're talking about the "role" of marriage, you're right. I don't appreciate it. I find the societal construct of marriage, historically, very oppressive. I am glad it has been changing for the last 25 years.

Every child does not have a mother and father - and that is fine. Better in some situations that one of the parents is removed.

I think you are ignorant and close-minded, and time has already started to prove me right

NO, actually you have that backwards, it was the CHurch then

which lead the call of freedom and it was people like you who said things like - If you don't like slavery ... don't own one.

Anyway, I know the liberal bumpersticker slogans really captivates you but let me clue you in.... Hypothetically speaking, If there were a movement to marry people and their pets,

those who oppose it could (under your logic) be accused of "acting just like those in the day of Jim Crow,"

SO your bumpersticker slogan basically holds that anytime someone resists a change in marriage law, they de facto become Bull Connor.

ooooK.

Again, you do not follow my logic and have returned to Danno logic.

One, I am not a liberal, but I find no offense in being called one in a manner that you clearly meant to be insulting.

And my "slogan" applies to situations where parents and families teach that someone is lesser due to race/sexuality/religion/etc. and get upset when a secular government or secular entity teaches an equal playing field.

Well of course the seed is barely out of the ground, I mean it's only been a decade or two at the most for most places experimenting but we do know this already.

Where you have gay marriage you begin to have repression of people who disagree on principle, I think even a bishop was set upon in Canada.

We see right here in this country Orphanages shut down because they can't in good conscience betray their faith and adopt to gays.

We have seen the marriage rate plummet in one of the Scandinavia countries.

We see the Public school system being used to indoctrinate children at the earliest ages that "both hetro and ** marriages are equally valid" .....against their parents wishes and convictions on the matter.

Need me to go on?

And the seed is barely out of the ground.

Sorry, were these examples of "social chaos"? I'm missing the chaos part.

To say that gay marriage leads to repression is a bit baffling to me. The oppression of homosexuals, currently, is of no relevance to you?

Gay marriage is allowed...which leads to drop in marriage. I'm not following the causation here.

To teach equality is bad? I don't think I should have to remind you that you are making this argument identically to the ones used by racists when segregation was outlawed.

Your Catholic Story is like so many today, total lack of proper teaching on the church... just the things you suggest be changed show that.

I'm not picking on you because I and everyone I know had the same experience and it wasn't until I was years older

and began to study it abit that I began realized ... I really knew nothing of even the principles of the faith.

The changes you suggest would be like the U.S. changing the constitution to eliminate voting, freedom of speech and freedom of the press. For such changes to take place doesn't indicate "progress" but simply we now have a whole different form of government ... though the name be the same.

There are certain teaching which can change and adapt as historical realities change. But you're suggesting the Church turn from it's foundation, it's understanding of human nature and the relationship between God and man. This is not only impractical but not possible.

I used the word Hubris earlier because it is so fitting of your outlook. Here you are a person who can't be much older than 50 years, telling an institution 2000 years it needs to change it's to meet this particular moment of pop culture which is unique to this particular part of the world and only in the last several decades.

Think about it ...though your view on gay marriage is a very small minority in the world, you want the church to flip it's finger to the rest of mankind (not to mention its self and follow your concept of human relations.... though you are a denounced Catholic.

I ask you to show me the denominations which have flourished... even in the west after embracing things like Gay marriage?

So, to recap you are wrong not just on understanding how the Church works, but also on a practical level you can't even show where such changes are wanted by most catholics in the world (if this were a democracy) or have improved any large denomination... even in the west.

BUt I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

See, it's hard to discuss things with you because you imagine what the other person is saying or thinking. I did not say that the Catholic Church needs to change. It is my opinion that it should consider adapting certain things. And opinions, mind you, are a freedom awarded to everyone.

Do NOT tell me my opinions are wrong, OK? That is a horribly insulting and ignorant thing to say to anyone. Opinions are just that. They are not facts. They are subjective. They are based on individual experiences and understandings. Just because my Catholic education is different than yours does not mean that it is any less relevant. My reasons for separating from religion are personal and not because an entity "failed" me.

You can tease me on opinions, and you know I will do the same to you, but do not condescend me by telling me that I can't believe/think a certain way on a certain topic. I ask for your respect there.

I only brought up gay marriage, by the way, because 54% of American Catholics now support it (source) and only 38% oppose it, according to a recent study (the trend of increasing support can be seen for the last decade in various studies of different origins).

The Church has changed to adapt to a society that increasingly sees people as equal. Women are no longer punished as severely for their sins. Annulments are much more acceptable, with divorce approaching realization for Catholics. Adultery is no longer punishable by death. Etc. Some things are phased out over time. It is naive to believe that the Catholic Church of today is the same as it was 2000 years ago (when it wasn't even the "Catholic Church", mind you).

It might be impractical to say the Catholic Church accepts gay marriage - I for one see no need to force it on them. I am pro-gay marriage, but I do not believe that we need to force religious entities to change beliefs. For me, we only need to change the secular law.

Hey, you almost managed proper paragraph there.

Your hubris is just astounding. (c wut i did thur?)

It's early - I'm sure I'll get to your level soon.

Same if you are just going to copy and paste these tag lines in post after post..... at least post an accompanying photo thats a little entertaining, that way it won't be a total waste.

A total waste? Have you read anything you've ever posted? Perhaps I wouldn't question your logic so often if you could provide some rationale behind your thoughts and opinions, or at least enlighten us as to how your mind arrives at certain conclusions. Or at least post verifiable sources to back up your claims.

Progressive? Give an example of a denomination which went that rout and does not now have empty pews.

Anyway Your narrow Idea of what Islam or Catholicism or any other orthodox "Should be" will be fade like a spring flower as these faiths will continue.

But I'll say this, the hubris you folks have is a marvel to behold. What makes if even more entertaining, is when you have a, oh I don't know, a 5 minute conversation you realize the "all knowing one" really couldn't even pass a

basic test on the topic he stands so firmly on.

hubris |ˈ(h)yoōbris|

noun

excessive pride or self-confidence.

First, we are not talking about Islam/

Second, everyone can have an idea on what something "should be". Even the most obedient and dedicated Catholics can have ideas or opinions on how the Catholic church handles itself. I was born and raised in the Catholic Church (since denounced) and many of my family members are practicing Catholics who can intelligently criticize certain aspects of the Church. In the last decade, Catholics as a whole have become much more progressive in their ideas on gay marriage, for example. Religion has its roots in society - created and upheld by society. When society changes, religion changes. Not in the same ways and not to the same rate, but it changes and transforms. I didn't say that the Church had to change, or even should necessarily change, but I believe it should be progressive in that it acknowledges a changing demographic and for its past mistakes (particularly with its excessive spending of Church funds on certain things and its cover up and continuance of child molestation).

I'm assuming you included that definition for your own benefit so as not to forget what it meant while changing tabs between dictionary.com and VJ to reply.

Like others suggested, you are going to have a hard time. Manila is known for having some tough interviews and having two petitions filed so closely together, but with different people, will look very suspicious. If your relationship is genuine then eventually you'll power through.

Just to clarify, I was not insinuating that meeting in person would make the relationship stronger than online relationships. However, when an organization's (USCIS) job is to determine whether relationships are genuine and try and reduce the instances of fraud, there has to be certain situations where the chance of fraud is minimized by the details of the relationship in question. It was just food for thought.

Oh no, I assumed you were kind of "open question"-ing it to see thoughts.

It's just so hard to identify fraud. If you're childhood friends, that can raise more eyebrows than dating for one year. If you met through a mutual friend, that could be a set up. Everything can be fraud. Proof of meeting is important, obviously, but there are other strengthening aspects of a relationship. At first I didn't understand how some couples had only been with each other offline for a week, but it happens that they are much more legitimate than the couple who have been off-and-on dating for the last ten years (in the eyes of the USCIS).

Thanks a lot!

I will look into the embassy reviews. I really don't want to risk anything at this point!

So, for self-employment, you would just skip the pay stubs and letter of employment? Only submit tax returns along with the affidavit?

I am afraid that family isn't really an option on this one. Let's just say my fiancee's parents would have a hard time understanding...

You don't have to justify any reason for the family, just wanted to point out that it looks stronger.

I'm a freelancer and I'm going to submit tax returns, an affidavit, and pay stubs from recent gigs. I'm having a co-sponsor additionally with a steady income. This is all secondary to my fiance self-sponsoring, but that's an option only allowed at London.

It doesn't and it really shouldn't. All relationships are different and to say "this is a stronger relationship than that" would be absurd.