Late Arrival To Class

[The Beatles]

1. I'm certainly not outside the realm of getting information. The material of certain ones I already know due to my highschool training in Hungary.

2. I can't test out of any class, or I'd try to for each one.

3. Good for you. I only absorb what they say if it's either useful/interesting or neither of those but will appear on a test I need to get that certain piece of paper.

By the way, I highly doubt you've never taken a class that you learned very little from.

[Nuclear Raunch]

By the way, I highly doubt you've ever taken a class that you learned from.

FIFY and I wholeheartedly concur

[The Beatles]

Oi! Very subtle, though.

[Kraken]

dear me, you and the puke need to marry over there...
i heard that San Fran Sicko would accept you guys real easy like.

pah!

anycase, you said, bealtes, that you did not get any information, just paper....
hmmm.......

maybe i should stick to spamming.....

[The Beatles]

No, what I actually said was:

In many of my classes, it's not information I'm getting, but a piece of paper.

Many, not all.

So you think same-sex marriage is the right option? Well, you would know. Do tell us about your experience.

[Kraken]

*laughs*.
wow.
anycase, i like the whole idea going now that you can only be married if you copulate...*laughs*.

[The Beatles]

Returning in kind.

It's not quite that. But it is silly. If you are immigrating, you must know that a marriage is only valid if you do copulate.

The whole idea of marriage with legal benefits is weird. All benefits should be available to any two parties wishing to enter in a contract, on a more granular basis. And corporations should be considered persons for reasons of law.

[Kraken]

pah, i disagree...
marriage is a good resource for procreation, but it shouldnt be its only purpose.
as for want to poke anothers butt and call it a marriage, i really dont have a problem with it, as long as they arent raising any children...

[The Beatles]

marriage is a good resource for procreation, but it shouldnt be its only purpose.

Not even its primary purpose.

There is a distinction though between what the state calls marriage, and between what our ancestors called marriage, and this is very unfortunate, because they use the same word, and this subliminally confuses everyone.

[Devari]

Why shouldn't homosexuals raise children? Is the capability to love a child and raise them well somehow directly tied to the sexual preferences of the person? I, personally, don't think so; you're perfectly free to disagree, though.

[Gen. Volkov]

Intellectually speaking, you are perfectly correct Devari, I can't think of any reason that homosexuals would make worse parents than heterosexuals, other than possibly giving the child a messed up worldview, but hetero parents do a great job of that themselves already. Personally, I think one should have to take a test before they are allowed to become a parent. It would involve IQ and other factors, and judge whether you are really prepared to have a child, and whether your child will be a good addition to the human race. That goes for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Far too many stupid people in this world that should just not be allowed to breed or have children in any way.

Now emotionally speaking, homosexuals raising children kinda creeps me out, I have no idea why, it just does. I think it's because of my own rearing, it's pretty hard to not get any opinions shaped by your parents, and both of mine aren't fans of gay marriage or of gays raising children. (My parents are actually pretty intelligent people, BTW, it's just that my dad is conservative as all get out, and my mom isn't too far behind, though in their day, both were liberal, my mom especially, she was a hippie in the 60's.)

[The Beatles]

Personally, I think one should have to take a test before they are allowed to become a parent.

The Spartans had an idea like that, it was called Mt Taygetus. It applied to the baby, not the parent, but same principle. It was a bad idea then, and it was a bad idea now, because it limits democracy.

Why shouldn't homosexuals raise children? Is the capability to love a child and raise them well somehow directly tied to the sexual preferences of the person? I, personally, don't think so; you're perfectly free to disagree, though.

You'll notice it isn't related to the preferences of the parents, but the number of each type allocated. But that's irrelevant, I understood your point. I don't think a same-sex couple is the ideal choice for parents, but given that many parents do such an abysmal job anyway, I don't think it would matter.

[Gen. Volkov]

The Spartans had an idea like that, it was called Mt Taygetus. It applied to the baby, not the parent, but same principle. It was a bad idea then, and it was a bad idea now, because it limits democracy.

I know, but it was more an emotional argument than a reasoned one. Not the same principle though, my idea physically harms no one, and prevents children from being born to bad parents, because more than likely, those children will not grow up to be well-adjusted productive members of society, and it's also likely they will be just as stupid as their parents. But I agree, it does limit our freedoms, though not democracy, democracy is just voting as you wish. But I see what you meant by the statement.