User talk:Nerd42

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 07:00, August 13, 2010 by Thekillerfroggy (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
You can find my old talk page at User talk:Nerd42/old user page

You can post here that you agree or disagree with the points I bring up in my letter and maybe I'll respond or whatever. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 16:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

edit About illogilands eventual downfall

Sorry it took me long to reply. Yes, turning it into an ongoing thing would be nice! -- 06:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, as a very active administrator and contributor to the site I have to say that I disagree with your first point. There is a certain amount of sex related humour within Uncyclopedia but to state that it is "overrun" with it is very far from the mark. There is plenty of "humour" within the site that I personally do not like, but as an Admin I don't have the right to delete it purely based upon my tastes, and so, aside from attempts to add more "funny" to some of these articles or at least urge the authors to do the same, I make no attempt to remove articles I disagree with on whatever level. Admins should be fair, and try to see a wider picture.

I am not a big fan of "graphic" sexual humour, though as you can see from my contributions I'm not above the use of innuendo and double entendres, though I tend to go more towards the British Picture Postcard level of the Carry On Films tradition.

With regards to the idea of seperating content by some kind of rating system I personally think it would be unworkable, mainly because the defining point within many articles would be too close to call, plus "policing" articles would be a nightmare, before we even get into a who polices the police discussion. The best way to add a rating system is through the use of templates, the most obvious one the old faithful NSFW template. I happen to think this is enough, and people having free will, can go where they will.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and its your choice to stay or leave. For what its worth, I've enjoyed quite a few of your contributions. Bon voyage.... -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)

As regards to your ratings suggestion, I think I have a suggestion that could work: P for "porn," M for "Safe for Mom," G for "Safe for Grandma," and D for "Safe for my Daughter." But being perfectly honest, I don't think it'd actually work (just as Mhaille said, policing would be horrid. Way to much work for much fewer readers.) I'm definitely sad to see you go, as well (so much so that I'm actually posting at the site, something I'm doing very little of of late), but I can understand the why of it even if I don't exactly agree. May your writings attract many a chuckle in your future.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 04:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, sexual humor is almost never funny. I disagree that we need a ratings system, however. Either it's funny and therefore excusable, or it's not funny, and therefore inexcusable and a candidate for deletion. I disagree, also, about the amount of sexual or offensive content on Uncyclopedia. Offensive content for the mere sake of being offensive is plain not funny, and articles get huffed every day that aren't funny. The crap takes a long time to get voted on and deleted, but it's slowly diminishing, and the incoming crap is rather efficiently deleted immediately or within a week's time. Personally, I don't think Uncyclopedia is about the fact that a good chunk of the articles here are shite. I think it's about the community and the incoming articles that are good. That's the problem these days — people are too hell-bent on getting rid of bad-quality articles (for differing values of "quality") and not focused enough on the new ones. The crap will take an eternity to wade through, but there's nothing anyone can do about that, and the only time it impacts Uncyclopedia is when somebody hits random and finds a worthless page. But they usually survive the experience. Usually.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  formspring) 17:27 Oct 27, 2007

Pleasure to have had you at Uncyclopedia, and perhaps someday you'll return to the site with less convictions. It's common knowledge that "humor" and what is "funny" is solely based on perspective. Uncyclopedia, like every other wiki, aims for decision making via consensus, which is only effective given Uncyclopedia's small community size. I disagree with your second point based on this. As you already know, a "100% consensus" is not possible, and consequently results in a minority (whether they be outspoken or not). This minority is, however, not entirely powerless. Minorities help establish a stronger overall approval (in that, they point out what may be wrong with the article which has gone unnoticed by the majority). I think your second point contrasts Uncyclopedia to some sort of despotism. When it comes to determining what's funny, there is no such thing as a "100% consensus" with so many readers and editors. But the first and most basic principal of consensus is that silence equates to consent. In other words, if an edit is made and not reverted, it is generally accepted by the community (or at least those we assume read the material) that the content is approved. Of course, readers and many editors alike disagree. This consistent disagreement, in theory, helps establish a stronger consensus through collaboration and such. In other words, getting everybody to laugh at an article is impossible, but we try to appeal to as many people as possible by giving people collective rights even if they are a minority when it comes to consensus, and with this comes the continuous cycle of editing that is every wiki, especially Uncyclopedia. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 04:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never said there should be a 100% consensus about everything. That would be "minority rule". I do not advocate minority rule. I do think that articles that deal with controversial subjects should not "attack" or purposefully be offensive/degrading to people who hold minority views (example) no matter what the majority says, because such articles are not funny. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 15:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the link you gave does contain some seeds of humour, enough to make me smile anyway. But, and its an important but, articles don't just attack people or be purposefully offensive to just minorities, they treat majority views just the same.
I belong to a minority that is often openly attacked, is ridiculed on a few pages within this site, as well as out there in the "real world", usually by those seen as the majority. At the end of the day, this is just a satire website. It is not going to be used by individuals or groups in any serious discussion on issues. If you don't want to edit here anymore, don't. Its your freedom of choice. Maybe you should start UnControversialopedia. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
(Mhaille is a pixie. Uncyclopedia's reputation for anti-pixie/pro-fairy bias is not entirely undeserved.) Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
/me sprinkles magic dust into Modusoperandi's eyes..... -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
Ah! Pixie dust is salt! My beautiful eyes! Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

edit "gay-bashing" ?

Um, I've been accused of this thing called "gay-bashing" and it seems to be following me around. Seems that anti-homosexual bigots are hunted down like Salem witches nowadays.

I'd like to make it clear that I am not against homosexuals as people. I am opposed to homosexuality as a socially accepted practice and as a social/political movement, like millions of other people are. I stated once in a conversation about God that I believe that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong because my sense of right and wrong is derived from my beliefs about God. I'm not sure, but I don't think that qualifies as "gay-bashing" --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

My religion and beliefs therein tell me you're a piece of shit, morally repugnant, and utterly wrong in every area. I'm not sure, but I don't think that qualifies as "Nerd42-bashing." The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs)
You know,, while you may have a point, there is an apparent difference in style and tone between what you've written and what he wrote. One COULD be interpreted as being more respectful than the other. But then, what do I know, I have a booger as a signature.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 19:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
You do have a booger as a signature. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Woah, so THAT'S what that is? --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 07:00, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
There's quite a difference between words and actions--no matter how 'offensive' words are, they're nothing against actions, like banning gay marriage. In conclusion, FUCK Nerd42 and FUCK assholes who think like him. Good day.  :)
Oh, and before I forget, the implicit 'offensive words' that he's using are that gay people deserve to burn in hell. l8ter! 19:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, where did he say that? It wasn't on this page.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 19:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
My argument about gay marriage has always been that there is no such thing. It is a contradiction in terms. Marriages are not gay, under any sense of the word. Any person who has been married for more than a month can confirm this.
More seriously, as far as your assertion that I believe "gay people should burn in hell" - I have never said that or anything like it. What I have said is that as a Christian, I believe in the fall of man - that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God - which includes everybody regardless of sexual preference. When it comes to politics, I have articulated my position on these issues thus:
"The government should simply call every type of legally solemnized domestic relationship between adult humans a "civil union" and get completely out of the business of deciding what a marriage is and is not. Leave that up to the public, the media, the churches and the dictionary publishers. They will immediately revert to defining marriage as between one man and one woman as Western civilization always has. Only civil unions between one man and one woman should be allowed to adopt children, (Children deserve a mommy and a daddy, partly so that they can have both masculine and feminine examples / role models in their lives) and that adoption process should be made simple and fast. Divorces should not be easy to obtain (in order to prevent abuse of the system) but should be obtainable for anyone in a civil union who wants out." - The Nerd42 Plan, posted 11/11/2008 --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 15:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
"My argument about monotheism has always been that there is no such thing." ~ Zoroaster's father, 600BC
"My argument about virgin births has always been that there is no such thing." ~ Joseph 1BC
"My argument about mixed marriages has always been that there is no such thing. It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Lokwisha." ~ State of Alabama, 1883
"My argument about artificial satellites has always been that there is no such thing." ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower, October 3, 1957
"My argument about test tube babies has always been that there is no such thing." ~ Dr. Medicalguy, 1978
So, your argument is that there could be such a thing as "gay marriage" but it would take either a miracle from God or else some advance in science to make it so. That's very interesting. An absurd argument, but interesting.
Just as John Keats was wrong/incorrect when he said, "What the imagination seizes as beauty must be truth" I think it is wrong/incorrect to assume that what society seizes as progressive must be right, or indeed true. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 15:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No. My argument is that your argument is poor. The Argument from Tradition is consistent only in its obsolescence.
"...I think it is wrong/incorrect to assume that what society seizes as progressive must be right, or indeed true." Nor does that it's new for you make it false. Each point should be argued on its merits. Elderly lesbians getting hitched (with all the rights and responsibilities that come from that) is not weakness, it's strength.
"Only civil unions between one man and one woman should be allowed to adopt children, (Children deserve a mommy and a daddy, partly so that they can have both masculine and feminine examples / role models in their lives)..." So, widowers should have to give up their kids? What about divorced couples? Studies indicate that there's no real difference between gay adoption and non-gay adoption (some show it a little bit better, a little bit worse, or the same). There is precious little study on gay male adoption, however (most studies are about the ladies). Incidentally, gay couples still fall into male/female roles, if my own anecdotal experience is any indication (I work with a lesbian. It's not as hot as it sounds).
"...and that adoption process should be made simple and fast"...because with all of life's big decisions, we need to streamline the process. Also...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." ~ Thomas Jefferson, 1776
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment
"Woo!" ~Del Martin, June 2008
"D'oh!" "the gays", Nov 5, 2008. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 16:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not arguing from "tradition" - I'm arguing from "Words mean things - let's keep our language sane." C.S. Lewis makes a similar argument about the word "Christian" which I would like to present not as a defense of or anything to do with Christianity but as a strong argument for "marriage" to mean something recognizable:
"We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.
The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said - so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully - "Ah but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?" They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is "a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A 'nice' meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose." -- C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity"
Expanding the definition of the word "marriage" turns it into a useless word like the word "gentleman". It ceases to be a term of description and becomes one of praise. So, in this context, I am not a gentleman. Similarly, two people of the same gender cannot be a married couple any more than someone who doesn't have a coat of arms and/or some land can be a gentleman.
The argument for gay marriage from equal protection under the law is also weak because, at the risk of boring everyone, of the slippery slope it creates. Can I marry my sock? What about my horse? Or my two year old daughter? People often confuse equality with sameness.
Arguments for gay adoption from equal protection under the law is even weaker. Who is being protected in the case of an adoption? The orphans are. I think only allowing two-parent both-gender homes to adopt children would best protect the interests of the orphans.
Also, I put the adoption clause in there because the present adoption system is extremely slow and inefficient. When I say "easy and fast" I meant "easy and fast compared to how it's being done now" and I should perhaps revise the statement to make this point. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 19:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
"I'm not arguing from "tradition" - I'm arguing from "Words mean things - let's keep our language sane." Meaning changes. A language that doesn't evolve with its users dies. And if that's your argument, then that's precisely the Argument from Tradition.
"The argument for gay marriage from equal protection under the law is also weak because, at the risk of boring everyone, of the slippery slope it creates." Ding-ding! Collect your prize. That's one of the arguments behind the anti-miscegenation statutes. Again, every change should be decided on its merits.
"Can I marry my sock?" No. Inanimate objects can't give consent.
"What about my horse?" More power to you, hillbilly, but animals can't give consent.
"Or my two year old daughter?" Minors can't give consent. In some areas you can theoretically marry a sibling, provided you can't reproduce (because of the clear and evidence-based consequences of inbreeding).
"People often confuse equality with sameness." People often confuse "separate but equal" with "equal".
"Arguments for gay adoption from equal protection under the law is even weaker." I wasn't using that for that (although it could apply). I was using equal protection for gay marriage.
"Who is being protected in the case of an adoption? The orphans are." Applicants should be judged on their qualifications, not sexual orientation... (From that study I linked earlier). In other words, adoption should be base on quality of care-slash-competence, not the relation of the parents' crotches. Orphans need parents, not parents with complementary genitalia.
"I think only allowing two-parent both-gender homes to adopt children would best protect the interests of the orphans." You can think whatever you want, but it's what the studies state that matters. Beliefs are a weak buttress compared to facts, and the facts state that gay adoption results in kids that are about as messed up as the rest of us (which makes the anti-gay adoption stance a tu quoque). Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
So you think the only difference between men and women are genitalia. What planet are you from? --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 21:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Way to not refute any of my points. Kudos on ignoring the studies of kids adopted by homosexual couples. Congratulations on your trite reply to my serious point/s/. Gay marriage is not bad. The worst thing that comes from gays "ruining the sanctity of marriage" is that some of them will inevitably "ruin the sanctity of divorce". Gay adoption is not bad. Kids adopted by gay couples are statistically just like the kids adopted by hetero couples. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, how would it ruin the sanctity of marriage? The only logical reason would be divorces and, ahem comparing proportionate divorces with number of marriages... otherwise, the sanctity of marriage is untouched as it is a couple in love wishing to spend their lives together or whatever may happen, the end. 25px-Faglogo.pngtalk 21:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
How does men and women being different have any bearance on this argument? Unless you're suggesting that men would be less competent, and would advocate lesbian adoption. 25px-Faglogo.pngtalk 21:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
So ... you think the only possible difference between men and women must be that one gender or the other is less competent? At this point I'm just trying to understand what crazy, mixed up view of humanity you people have. I mean, one can always bicker but if we don't have a shared view of facts about life there's no common authority to appeal to with logical argument. This is apparently going back to the Declaration of Independence's statements about human rights but before I can really substantively construct an argument from them I need to understand whether and why the person I am talking to believes in them. I believe that people are created equal and different from one another, but I do not believe that people are equal. Are you with me so far? --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 21:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
(Goddamn edit conflicts!) "You people"? You've come across as ignorant there. Yes I understand your reasoning there, but what I just cannot understand is your opposition to homosexuality. Do you feel the world would be better without gays? How is it that one can even "oppose" a sexuality? That's like opposing a preference for blondes. 25px-Faglogo.pngtalk 21:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
"At this point I'm just trying to understand what crazy, mixed up view of humanity you people have." The puzzle that is Man has many pieces, in a pile. Put together, they form a picture of a lighthouse, except for that piece that the cat ate.
"I mean, one can always bicker but if we don't have a shared view of facts about life there's no common authority to appeal to with logical argument." I gave you facts. The studies thus far, while limited, show that gay adoption is only as bad as hetero adoption. The arguments against gay marriage are the same ones behind the anti-miscegenation statutes. They didn't work then, and they don't work now. Most gay people chose to be gay about as much as I choose to be straight (I like boobies. True story). Two gay people being in a committed relationship deserve the benefits of marriage. The arguments against it are weak to non-existent. The arguments for it are this. If that story doesn't move your heart, you're cold and dead inside. I am, too, but that's tangental for this conversation.
"This is apparently going back to the Declaration of Independence's statements about human rights..." I'm not a big fan of the Declaration, actually. It's more propaganda than anything else, but it does have some good points. An inalienable right is a right for all...unless the harm it would cause justifies preventing some from having which case it's really an, um, alienable right.
"I believe that people are created equal and different from one another, but I do not believe that people are equal." People are different, but their rights are the same under the Law.
"Are you with me so far?" To be honest, I keep getting lost in your eyes. *swoon* Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"I gave you facts. The studies thus far, while limited, show that gay adoption is only as bad as hetero adoption." No ... they don't. There is no scientific criteria for the concepts of "bad" or "good". As I've said, I don't think we have a shared value to appeal to. My idea of "good" comes from the statement in Genesis that God looked upon the Creation and said it was good. Bad is derived as the opposite of good. This comes from the same God who said in the same book that a married man and woman are "one flesh". Once again, words mean things. If you have some other concept of good, what is it? Is it perhaps utilitarianism? I ask because by describing things as "just as bad" as you are appealing to some kind of standard of what bad means. I am sure you must have some principles, else you wouldn't see whatever I'm saying as wrong or incorrect. What are those standards? I think to resolve this we need to get behind the immediate "shoulds" and "should nots" to the "whys" and "why nots". --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 22:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding scientific criteria, no, there is no "bad" nor "good" because those are not measurable scientific criteria.
However, the scientific community looks at other criteria, such as prevalence of mental illness, poverty, crime, weight, overall physical health, and other factors that we consider to be "good" or "bad". Science has not found any difference in those adopted by gays vs. those adopted by straights. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 22:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
When I say "just as bad" I'm saying that they end up the same as the rest of us. Children of heterodoption (I'm trademarking that) aren't perfect. Neither are those of homodoption (trademarking that, too). The facts are the results of gay adoption. You might not like them, but kids adopted by gay parents ending up like kids adopted by straight parents is a fact, and deflates the "what about the kids?" argument against gay adoption, which is the only argument that matters. The facts are not in your favour. That in no way changes the facts. In the same manner, whether I'm a utilitarianist or a moral realist or any other philosophy in no way effects changes the results in comparisons between homodoption™ and heterodoption™. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, kids of divorced couples probably turn out just like the rest of us too. That doesn't mean a divorced situation is just as good as a married-and-together one. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 14:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Are we talking about banning divorce? No? Also, your point isn't reality-centric, as children of divorced parents have a higher chance of bad. That's the scientific term. My doctor said to me, one time, "If you don't stop that, you'll have a higher chance of bad". Then he slapped me. Prick. I got back at him by stealing a couple of those cotton-tipped swabs. And a paper gown. And his stethoscope. And his car. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
"Gays are treated as more dangerous than felons, drug offenders and known child abusers — none of whom is categorically barred from adopting." (& the same story, but with typically insane comments from typically insane commenters). Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 05:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, we both agree that the present adoption system makes no sense. Felons, drug offenders, known child abusers and also, I think, current alcoholics shouldn't be able to adopt children. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 14:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

edit It depends on how literally ...

It depends how literally one takes the Bible's teachings. In the church, "marriage" implies a union blessed by God. Some people don't want gays to consider themselves "married" because they believe that gay unions cannot be blessed by God. I sincerely hope that gay unions can be blessed, but if the Bible says otherwise then I might not be a Christian if I don't believe the Bible. I didn't make the rules. Myself, I am of the opinion that gay unions should have the same legal protections that straight marriages do. I guess this makes me a liberal. I know several conservatives that feel otherwise though. Of course, if one is a gay pagan (and I know a few people who are) one wouldn't care about "God's opinion" or "what the Bible says" nor about "sin" in general. Finally, I think there is a difference between conservative (fundamentalist) Christian definitions of what a gay is, and definition from gay community of what a gay is. People talk about "former gays", who are people who are inclined to favor the same sex, but no longer engage in gay sexual activity. The gay community doesn't believe they really exist, because the gay community considers a gay anyone who is inclined to favor the same sex, regardless of their actions. This brings up the question: are thoughts sin, or do they only become sin when they become action? If thoughts are sin, then most straights also have sinned through either fornication, adultery, or both, and are just as sinful as gays. Just my "thoughts" and words on the matter. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 22:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I see marriage as being merely a "blessing" from God as you seem to be saying. Marriage is more like a contract between three parties (a man, a woman and God) notarized by whoever is performing the ceremony. It includes some very legalistic concepts. ("Thou shalt not commit adultery") It has a definite shape that was not created by mankind, has never changed and will never be altered. Marriage can be a blessing but that depends on whether and how the terms of the contract are carried out. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 19:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
"Marriage is more like a contract between three parties (a man, a woman and God) notarized by whoever is performing the ceremony..."
Um..."By the authority vested in me by the State of X, I now pronounce you man and wife. (Note: slightly different, obviously, in States that have marriage equity). Swap "God" for "State", and you're closer, in a nation with a secular Constitution.
"It includes some very legalistic concepts."
Yeah. Contracts are like that.
"It has a definite shape that was not created by mankind..."
People marry for many reasons, but usually one or more of the following: legal, social, and economic stability; the formation of a family unit; procreation and the education and nurturing of children; legitimizing sexual relations; public declaration of love; or to obtain citizenship...
For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children.
(above from Marriage). It started as a property contract, not a holy writ from the Big Guy upstairs. He stumbled in late, caught the bouquet, then claimed credit for the whole idea. Incidentally...
The mythological origin of Chinese marriage is a story about Nüwa and Fu Xi who invented proper marriage procedures after becoming married...This occured around 5000 BC
(above from Marriage), makes it patently clear that a couple of Chinese people thought it up.
"...has never changed and will never be altered..."
Polygyny, polyandry, group marriage, monogamy, mixed-religion, mixed-race, mixed-up...and more that are too far out for my tiny mind to comprehend.
"Marriage can be a blessing but that depends on whether and how the terms of the contract are carried out."
That's a problem with marriage in general. Two innies (or outies) doesn't change that. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't live in a nation with a secular Constitution. The United States Constitution was meant to be non-sectarian, not "secular" in the modern, anti-religious, Michael Newdow sense of the word.

You can put a dress on a tree but that doesn't make it a woman. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 16:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm done here. We're arguing from two distinct points of view. I'm using reason and studies. You're using your interpretation of your God. The small percentage of willing, adult people that are hurt by your God don't care what you think He thinks. Don't worry, in a generation or three your God will be just as for gay marriage as He was against it. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 23:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
That would be a different god. "Under entirely new management" so to speak. Studies give information. They don't determine or ordain what is right and wrong. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 14:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
So the God now is a different eternal God than the one before? You know, the one that was for slavery? I hear that the one now is against it. That sounds nice. It makes me feel warm inside.
Studies show the positive/negative consequences of an action (if X then Y). You can decide that gay marriage is wrong, but the fact that it's not bad severely undermines your case for wrongness. It turns out that supporting serial monogamy supports serial monogamists. Apparently, that's not bad. That's what matters to those involved. I know that's an outrage, but it appears to be true. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 18:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I don't think you have enough information to describe anything as "my" God.
Second, your standards of "bad" are begging the question. Your argument is not based on the studies but on the philosophy you bring to interpreting them.
Third, I don't understand the relevance of what you're saying about serial monogamy. Far as I'm concerned, serial monogamy is the same thing in practical terms as polygamy. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 18:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, if your God agrees with Prop 8, then it's safe to say that I know enough about your God that we disagree on at least that one issue.
Whether something is good or bad is based on the outcome/consequences of an action. By that standard, gay marriage is not bad.
If you're confusing serial monogamy with polygamy, then you're stretching the former considerably. To bursting, possibly. If you're against both of those, when can I expect a Prop to ban divorce? By how much do you think it will fail? 95%? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

OK I think I have an idea that might make this whole discussion go away. Do you think single people should be able to adopt? I don't. I think it should take a man and a woman to adopt children. Whether they're "gay people" or not isn't the issue. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 19:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If we're back to adoption, you should already know pretty much where I stand. New info (hurrah!): I am iffy on single people adopting. I'm iffy because two parents are better than one (whether or not they have complimentary genitalia, as those studies I linked earlier show), but I'm not against taking kids away from single parents or widowers. It's not a black and white world. Shades of grey make things more interesting anyway. More...human. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Human... all too human... /me pretends not to be a nosy arse--Sycamore (Talk) 22:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
You think it's OK for the state to take kids away from single parents and widowers because there's only one parent? Am I reading you correctly? --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 22:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
No. No, you're not. My point is that if it applies to singles who adopt, it applies to all single parents. Single parenthood isn't the ideal, and as such isn't ideal (do you see how grey life is? Absolutes fall down in the real world). If there are kids to be adopted and there are no couples available, then singles are okay (one parent is better than no parents). Two are preferable, ideal, but not always possible. Life is like that.
And "I think it should take a man and a woman to adopt children. Whether they're "gay people" or not isn't the issue." ignores the fact that it is the issue. Gay couples don't come in male/female pairs (although, if my own anedotal experience around gay couples is any indicate, they do still fall into male/female roles). This is because they are homosexuals. Only hetero couples come in complementary pairs. Gays are matched sets. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 23:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your first paragraph ... what are you saying that applies to all single parents? --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 14:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you two just get a room already? -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
Yeah I think it might be better just to drop this at this point. I do see that my policy ideas need some revising, as Modusoperandi is able to punch holes in them. They perhaps do not satisfactorily embody the principles I meant them to embody. But I don't accept this apparent contention that homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual ones and should be treated as same. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 15:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd disagree with that, a physical relationship and the physical/mental/emotional aspects would be pretty much the same. Of course if you are talking about legal, cultural or religious restrictions that is a different matter, but remember that they are man-made constructions and need to be viewed in that context. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
Fine. I can see that you've dropped me for Mhaille (who said everything that I said, but in a much more compact form. Prick). I'm not bitter. Just make sure to hide your pot, or Mhaille will smoke all of it. You know pagans... Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 19:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The more the merrier I say! -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
Yes, but much like Jesus appearing when two or more people gather in His name, when you get more than four pagans together, they start stacking rocks to help track the sun. You should see my living room! Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 00:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
You should clarify this one point, though: Hypothetically, if a couple adopts a child, and then a week later one of the two parents (whether or not they're heterosexual) dies in a car accident, are you saying the state should move in, take the child away from the remaining parent, and reassign it to another couple? I fear that proposal wouldn't be likely to get you elected to high office, even in a state dominated by Mormons. (Sorry to butt in, by the way!)  c • > • cunwapquc? 21:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
No problem. This isn't even my talkpage. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Those were my thoughts exactly except I don't see what Mormons have to do with it. But I wasn't going to press the issue because that would involve more arguing back and forth when I've already conceded that my ideas need re-examination. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 21:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
They got to you, didn't they? How did they convert you? Was it the magic underpants? It was, wasn't it? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
No, dagnabit. I was pointing out that if we regulate everything as though the world was already the unattainable ideal, actual people get hurt (if single people shouldn't be allowed to adopt then single parents shouldn't be allowed to parent. One parent in each case, see?), which is a side point to a tangent. Treat the world as though things were black and white, and you end up crushing the greys in the middle (or, in the case of the original subject of conversation, an unpopular minority). Maybe I phrased it real wronglike. Me no speaks the english gooder. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that the requirements for adoption should match the requirements for parenthood. But if they should, then that would mean no gay parent adoptions since gays don't have children. Nature sets the default requirements for parenthood and the state has no business arbitrarily interfering with the normal course of family life. (abusive situations are abnormal and thus aren't covered by that statement) But the state, or at least the people funding the state i.e. the taxpayers, you and me, have a legitimate responsibility to ensure that orphans are given the best opportunities possible in their circumstances. In my view, against that, equal protection for would-be adoptive parents doesn't even figure in the equation.

The reason I am opposed to gays being able to adopt is that I believe the purpose of adoption is to rebuild family ties where they are broken. In an ideal world, family ties are supposed to go on for more than one generation. Since I don't view homosexual relationships as families, I don't think their households are options for orphans to be adopted into. It would merely replace one type of broken situation with another. Thus I think it would be a better idea to have an orphan grow up in an orphanage than to have a gay couple adopt him / her.

One thing I think we might be able to agree on though, is that any orphans who might have already been adopted by homosexual households shouldn't be moved again by future changes in adoption policy. It's a bad idea to allow such a thing in the first place, but permanence in a somewhat broken situation can be better than breaking the situation up. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 21:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this a private discussion or can anyone join in? Well, if you consider established gay couples who have already adopted to be suitable parents, what is the problem with allowing new ones? MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 22:07, Jan 22

My talk page is a public conversation since obviously, anyone can read it and anyone can edit.

There are a great many heterosexual parents out there who aren't what I would consider "suitable parents". But it's not the state's responsibility to make that judgment. The state's responsibility is to find suitable homes for orphans. The state may, without contradiction, have different and/or higher requirements for who will become adoptive parents than the requirements of nature for who will become biological parents.

I'm reminded of a brief exchange I once heard that went like this:

Lawyer: "The law is a sacred responsibility!"
Student: "Well, so is fatherhood, and look how many fools are practicing that!"

--Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 22:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, if you didn't edit so damned much, I might have been able to get a goo point through before you went and mucked it all up.
Anyway, there's bound to be things in here which you've addressed, but there's a lot that you haven't. At least not satisfactorily from an argumentative standpoint. For the most part, you're spouting beliefs instead of counterarguing. You're assuming the ideal and conveniently casting off the nonideal as an aberrant case, rather than acknowledging that it exists and it very likely could happen. Further, you take the aberrant case to the extreme, discounting instances wherein a gay/lesbian couple could be a vastly superior surrogate over only a mostly functional heterosexual couple.
In a sense, you pidgeonhole your statement as a belief that any heterosexual couple that is adequate above quality standard "x" counts as a good surrogate. However, this conflicts with the reality that the "x" that you present does not fall in line with the way things are. In a way, you are presenting a "No True Scotsman" argument. Bad heterosexual couples don't count because they're abnormal, homosexual couples with children don't count as families, just as a scotsman that doesn't have a "proper brogue" isn't a "real" Scotsman. It's a flimsy argument backed by what is essentially idealistic belief spouting, neither of which actually do anything for this argument, but allow you to soapbox.
Your statement that homosexual adoptions "replace one type of broken situation with another" is asserted on the supposition that homosexual couples are inherently broken and so are their families. This is again founded on the ideal that there must be a rigid family structure. Again, what is your basis on such a rigid family structure? In order for this statement to be correct, your supposition must be true. --Flammable 22:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Cool, but ya did not really answer my question though. "if you consider established gay couples who have already adopted to be suitable parents, what is the problem with allowing new ones?" Either Gay people (some anyway) are suitable parents or they are not right? ;) MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 22:22, Jan 22

When Adam said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" I accept that statement as true. I do not think it requires proof. When I wrote the passage that this discussion is about (look in the backlog for it, it's part of "The Nerd42 Plan") it was a statement of opinion rooted in general principles. If you don't accept the principles, fine. There really isn't much to argue about. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 22:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So you are choosing to ignore my question, and just quote the bible to me? Well, fair enough... Have fun, I will leave your talk page... MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 22:26, Jan 22
Which leads us to the problem again. You're proving your point by supposition. Your given premise is not objective truth insofar as it is not a provable, repeatable, real thing. Opinions are opinions, but they are not beyond the purview of "proper" and "improper" when viewed in terms of their progression from premise to conclusion. If your premise is inherently flawed, be it by derivation, origin, or factuality, by extension, your conclusions will carry the same flaw. If you cannot give anything other than your pithy bible as proof, then you are as worthless as your lord's word for objective truth. --Flammable 22:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey now, if Nerd42 wants to devote his life to hollow teachings let him do that, as long as he doesn't actually hurt anyone gay. Also, let him vote to ban gay marriage or whatever he wants to do, for he is only Nerd42. A vote has never counted, and as far as I know, Nerd42 has neither political significance or influence. He is entitled to his own hollow opinions if he wants, since he will have no impact on anyone as a whole. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 22:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Nah. Just checking to see mostly if he's the same pathetic human being he was when I first banned him for a few weeks. It'll be good to watch him fall on his own ideological sword when he edits.-_Flammable 22:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not editing on Uncyclopedia anyplace but my talk page, and that's only because you people keep messaging me. :) When I write articles, I write them for Illogicopedia where persuasive writing isn't allowed so nobody gets to use the site to spread their ideology or attack people they disagree with. That's not an accusation against anyone, merely a general statement of fact - and I also don't mean to suggest that Uncyclopedia should do anything similar. I couldn't care less what Uncyclopedia does at this point, which I think I made clear in my open letter. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 16:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
"Originally there was a chasm, Ginnungagap, bounded on either side by fire (from the world known as Muspelheim) and ice (from the world known as Niflheim). When fire and ice met, they combined to form a giant, named Ymir, and a cow, named Audhumbla (Auðhumla), who nourished Ymir. She survived by licking the salty ice blocks. From her licking emerged Bur (Búri), the grandfather of the Aesir." I know people who believe this statement to be true. Whether it has relevance to the discussion could be mute thought. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
Call me Enkidu...--Sycamore (Talk) 22:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Adam? The rib thing? Seriously? I can argue on facts. I can't argue on myths (and, as Mhaille pointed out, your uphill battle against logic gets steeper when you're fighting for space against other peoples' proof-exempt myths). You can believe that "it doesn't require proof", but if you're planning on regulating someone else's life based on it, you'd better damn well have an autographed copy. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 23:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not the statement about the rib that is the point. It's the statement about marriage - about the relationship between men and women that is the point. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 14:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh. Sorry, I'm used to arguing with literalists (and ones that say they aren't literalists, then go on to posit Babel as the point where language diversified). That still doesn't change that gay marriage is the same as ungay marriage. The connection is identical. The commitment is the same. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 15:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

edit I hope that I think that I might see an inkling of the edge of the problem now

Ah. Your view is based on two fundamental errors.
1) Gay couples (and gay families) are families. That elderly couple (one now deceased) that I linked a long time ago were a family since before I was even born. If that isn't a committed relationship, I don't know what is. That's "for better or worse".
2) Gay couples do have children. Their way is just a little roundabout...say, like test tube babies. Heteros do it too, apparently. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 23:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
You apparently define a "family" as "any committed relationship that wants to call itself a family". I define a family as "a group of people who are related through marriage, birth or adoption." Both of us are making value judgments. (There is no point in arguing that you're not making a value judgment. If you aren't, you have no grounds to say that I am wrong.)
We've got two very different systems of value judgments going on here. Continuing to argue about them will only lead in circles. The only way to understand our differences is to go back and discover from where our values are derived. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 16:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
You're adorable. Seriously. Gay people can't get married, so gay families aren't "families" because they aren't married. Read that story about the California couple who were together up to and including "until death do us part". They didn't need to call themselves a family. They were a family. Fifty damn years, Nerd42. What do your values tell you about that? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 18:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone may pledge to take care of their dog or horse "till death" but that doesn't make them married. Merely being someone's room-mate for a long period doesn't make the people married, even if they decide to attach emotional promises to their agreement about the rent. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 19:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow. I can't state just how insulting that is. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 19:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Dudes. Many Christians think that when a man and a woman have sex they literally "become one", and that prior to that they should be married in the eyes of their God. Christians think that marriage is an institution which is blessed by God, and can only exist between a man and a woman because it's not possible for two people of the same sex to become one, so they can't consummate the marriage. No? ... Personally, I have no problem with people believing what they wish, but if the views of one particular religious group are being forced onto others who do not share that view then something is wrong. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 20:29, Jan 26
Both groups want to impose value judgments on society. The judgment that something is acceptable / permissible is no less of a value judgment than the judgment that it isn't. One group wishes to impose a value judgment on gays who want to call themselves "married" as a group - the other wishes to impose a value judgment on the rest of society - particularly orphans and our traditional institutions relating to family. It is not a question of one group imposing values and the other group not doing so. Both groups are. The only question is "Whose value judgments are right / more correct?" --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 20:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, unless JC turns up and tells us which view is "correct" I'm not sure it's ever going to be possible to agree on what "correct" is. In the meanwhile society needs to come up with a system which allows both views to co-exist. I assume that many Christians would not be against gay unions which allowed all the same legal rights and benefits as marriage. If this is the case then all we are debating here is if gay people should be allowed to use the word "marriage" to denote their relationship. Considering that the concept of marriage was not invented by Christians, and that the English language (and therefore the word marriage) did not exist when JC was around it appears to be a little bit daft to argue about who should be allowed to use the word. No? MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 20:52, Jan 26
Oh, I currently live in St Albans. Check the link. ;) MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 20:58, Jan 26

Nobody contests whether gays should or should not be able to call their relationship a "marriage". Under the First Amendment, you can say that the sky is orange, the earth is flat or that water is a solid at room temperature if you want. When it comes to politics, issues dealing with hospital visits, inheritances, wills, taxes ect aren't really all that disputed - "civil unions" or something similar should be able to take care of those types of issues. The political issues actually under dispute are:

  1. Whether the government should issue marriage licenses to gays and/or call gay relationships "marriages".
  2. Whether the gay relationships that demand them should be afforded the same legal rights and privileges as traditional marriages. (Most people agree that they should be afforded at least some legal privileges)
  3. In what sense adoption is or is not a legal right or privilege of adults in the first place, and what the standards should be for households that wish to adopt.

The answers we advocate for these questions depend largely on our moral value judgments and philosophy. So unless we clear up where we are getting our moral value judgments and philosophy from, I do not think we can say anything productive to settling our differences. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 21:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I live in the UK, so the US constitution does not really affect me. You confused me with your first point though... You said that the US constitution permits anyone to call their relationship a marriage, but you still debate if the government should use the word? I don't understand that. Regarding adoption, I think the issue comes down to if you feel that a gay couple who adopt are more likely to raise their child to become gay, and if they do is that a good or bad thing. I personally believe that a person is born with a given sexuality. A Christian might say that God made them that way. Either way, we don't know for sure what causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation, so making a judgement based on something we don't know appears wrong. Even if the environment a child grows up in was capable of modifying their sexuality I still would not see a problem as I see nothing wrong with being gay. There are too many people in this world as it is, and if someone is willing to adopt to take the burden of support away from the state then that has to be a good thing. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 22:06, Jan 26

The position(s) I articulated that we've been arguing about were intended to influence policy decisions in the United States. That's what made the First Amendment relevant here. I was merely pointing out that whatever else my policy ideas may have done, they would not have infringed on anyone's free speech rights under the laws of the country whose policy I am trying to influence.

Now, about people being "born gay":

  1. All sexual acts are based on a choice on someone's part. It is therefore inaccurate to infer that people have no choice or control over their actions in regard to the homosexual lifestyle.
  2. I think we can agree that some people are more predisposed to homosexual tendencies than others are. I see this as being no different than predispositions towards alcoholism, overeating or anorexia. But rather than defining the person, (making a person good or bad; "gay" or "straight") this is merely one type of problem that some people run into. Organizations have been formed to help these people overcome this problem, such as Exodus International.
  3. The reason I view homosexuality as a problem and you view it (I surmise) as a type of person is, I think, largely based on our differing values. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 15:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

edit I also have an opinion on this argument, which is as follows:

tl;dr, sparknotes edition please. - T.L.B. Baloon WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 23:14, Jan 22

"The gays" are trying to get married. God's against it. I'm arguing against God. I'm that tough. I've got a tattoo and I spit and everything! Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 23:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Dude, that's mad sweet! Anyways, I think Rob Halford could totally beat up God in a fight. Shit would fly if they threw down though, man. Shit would fly. - T.L.B. Baloon WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 23:40, Jan 22

Ok, so here's what seems to be the sparknotes version: Nerd42 doesn't want gays to get married, but Modus does. Normally now I'd go and look at some of the supporting evidence right now, to see if either party could sway me to their side of the argument with their rhetoric or insight. However, I doubt that anyone here plans on being convinced of anything tonight, so I hereby decree that both Nerd42 and Modus are gay. And also that I win the argument. Sorry guys, I'm just too good of a debater. Maybe next time you'll do better. (Spoiler alert: You won't.) - T.L.B. Baloon WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 23:56, Jan 22

Uh. Huh? You're even worse at this than you look. And you look awful. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 00:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you spelled sexy wrong, Modus. - T.L.B. Baloon WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 00:34, Jan 23

edit Oh wow

Nerd is back, and he's editing a LOT. Coolio.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 01:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you distract him now. It's my turn to raid his fridge. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 04:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
No, not really. Commenting on my own talk page doesn`t really count. Any funny nonsensical non political articles i write are going on See the section on my userpage titled "Why do i still have an account?" PS. I am typing this on my hacked PSP so please excuse any mistakes. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 01:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

edit What is 'normal' anyway?

As a trisexual, I take personal offense. Our lifestyle is just as normal as yours, maybe three or four times as normal.   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 12 / 16:42) yeah, but seriously, shut the fuck up.

My argument has nothing to do with what is normal. I do not derive my sense of morality from what other people do. It has to do with what I believe is right and wrong. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 20:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, I think the church has a much different definition of what "gay" is or means than the gay community does. Consider the difference between thoughts and actions. Do all thoughts lead to action? Some thoughts should not lead to action. Death for example. Sex with Angry Elephants for another example. Perhaps some that the gay community would consider bisexual, are actually considered straight by the church, based on what actions they in fact choose to take. Simsilikesims 03:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Which church are you referring to? --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 14:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also which GOD are YOU refering to? -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
Also, why am I on this page? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 16:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Quite. Also, where ARE your TROUSERS? -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
He left them three forums ago at the village dump. ~Jewriken.GIF 17:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I should point out that I lost them quite a lot longer ago than that. And I haven't missed them one bit! Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

edit ...

uuuh hey ultra wiki noob here asking how to add a caption to a picture ive uploaded and added to an article The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4lettersdownfromk (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid Nerd42 isn't around that much... -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 09:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. He's scared of sockpuppets. Terrified! (I helped 4lettersdownfromk on his talkpage, too. Then we had pie). Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 19:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm too cool to talk to you right now. You can leave a message after the beep. Beep! --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 19:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Too cool? Nerd, you gotta get out of that refrigerator! :D -- Hindleyite Converse 21:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

edit "Nerd42's a moron" guestbook

Sign below, Cajek:

Collect enough signatures and it might get featured on the front page. LOL --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 16:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal tools