• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

The "anything" thread

I wish you good luck Gibby.
No more, no less !

Well, thanks! :D

Important: Make sure you're not just cheap labour. That's what you usually get with volunteer work/internship.

Yeah, at this point I don't really care too much on what the job actually is, what I do want however, is some kind of pay and general convienience. I'm not after a career, just some money out of a job that I will keep for a couple of months before going back to college again.
 
Upvote 0
Well good luck to the kid at school. You people, merely those who simply disvoted my post or replied with "Your opinion is wrong"(nice antithesis there), need a reality check. If a kid would have to tell his classmates that he has two fathers he'd get bullied into suicide. We're not living in Utopia unfortunately. So if you seriously think society is ready for that(in general, not just one in 100.000) you simply have no idea of the practical reality that there is. I'm dealing with 3-15 year olds everyday in my job and know how they're thinking. And in europe you don't even have the stereotypical jocks vs nerds syndrom.
Okay, you clearly have a very ignorant viewpoint when it comes to gay rights and parenting in general, but that is okay because you can change that. The cure for ignorance is knowledge. I am going to educate you because it is people who share your thoughts who are preventing homosexuals from getting the same basic rights as everyone else. Let's look at some typical arguments (myths) that ignorant and or bigoted individuals use to make homosexuals second class citizens who can't marry or adopt children. This is going to be a long post but I hope you read it so you can understand why your viewpoint is wrong and detrimental to society.


1. Children of gay parents will be bullied into suicide because their parents are gay!!!

Probably the worst argument you could possibly make. Let's ban gays from parenting because their children will be bullied! Okay fine, but let's ban fat people from having children. Other students will eventually see how fat their parents are and will bully the children into oblivion. Let's also ban interracial couples from having children. A child that has a black and white parent? They will be bullied into suicide!!!

See why this argument doesn't work? We can apply this to any situation where the child of parents may be bullied. Terrible argument, and a pathetic excuse to make homosexuals second class citizens. I believe this to be one of the worst arguments against gay adoption because it quite simply sums up to "bigots will make fun of them, so don't allow it" Is that really how we want to run things?

2. Gay couples are more likely to produce children who are gay.

Actually no. There is no evidence to support this theory at all. It is simply a bigoted, ignorant viewpoint. In any case, even if this was true (it's not) there is nothing wrong with being homosexual.

3. Homosexuals are incapable of providing a healthy environment for children to be raised in.

False statement. There is no evidence to support this claim. However, there is plenty of evidence to support that children who grow up in foster homes without any parents at all are extremely disadvantaged when compared to children who were raised by loving parents, whether their parents are gay or straight.
There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation
Source

Here is some food for thought.
According to the most current AFCARS (Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System Report) Report, released in September 2010, there were approximately 423,773 children in the U. S. in foster care on September 30, 2009.
Source

So about half a million children in the United States alone are in foster care. That is half a million children being raised in unstable conditions, with no parents. Let's look at how foster care effects children.
Children in foster care have disproportionately high rates of physical, developmental, and mental health problems and often have many unmet medical and mental health care needs.
"Most of these children [in foster care] have been the victims of repeated abuse and prolonged neglect and have not experienced a nurturing, stable environment during the early years of life. Such experiences are critical in the short- and long-term development of a child's brain and the ability to subsequently participate fully in society."
Source

To conclude this wall of text, there is no good arguments against gay adoption. Everything I have said I have backed up with credible sources. If anyone wants to dispute what I have said they must do the same.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Drakon2k said:
So instead of talking about gay marriage the primary focus should be on making marriage combined with getting kids more attractive again.

Xvreg.jpg


Drakon2k said:
getting kids more attractive again.



Drakon2k said:
getting kids more attractive

403yV.jpg


Drakon2k said:
I'm dealing with 3-15 year olds everyday in my job and know how they're thinking.

rwTxg.jpg


Why don't you have a seat?
 
Upvote 0
I dont have anything against gay people, or gay parents raising a child.
However, there are usually two kinds of gays: gays of whom you dont notice a thing, and gays who are all up in your face about their sexuality.
It is the latter that gives the former a bad impression.

Now, i have once seen a gay couple walk on the street with a child at their hand, and while this would be fine otherwise imo, one of them was dressed as a woman, but didnt even bother to shave.
That is something that i couldnt help but feel weirded out about, and i wondered what kind of impact that would have on the child.
Truth is, i dont know, but i would guess that it could distort the child's vision for better or worse.
That is something to be watched out for, because imo gays who are all up in your face and all 'look at me, i'm gay!' are just immature and thus emotionally not responsible to raise a child.

Children will often imitate their parents ("When i grow up, i want to be just like daddy!" and having a gay father who acts all girly just isnt right imo.
It is something that will be taught to the child, consciously or unconsciously, and not something that the child will experience from within, it will become a learned behaviour instead of a naturally formed behaviour from its own conscious mind.

That being said, i'm an open-minded individual and i take care not to be prejudiced, even though it is natural to be prejudiced. It's a base instict to be that way, still lingering from a more primitive and dangerous world where split decisions about life and death had to be made based on a first gut feeling when encountering something new.
However, i think it's people personal responsibility to fight this urge to prejudice, and keep an open mind and accept each and every individual the way he is.
But when certain responsibilities come into play (in this case parenting) there is a right to be concerned about which people should be allowed to adopt (or naturally conceive) children.
At the same time i'm very much against the idea of any other person having power to stop anybody else from doing something.
But the truth is, sometimes that is needed.

The problem is this: a straight couple who conceive a child the natural way are not necessarily fit to have a child.
There is nothing about being gay that stops you from being a good, responsible parent, yet somehow other people feel the need to restrict them from having a child either by adoption or another way.
In a society that prides itself on freedom, that is a HUGE contradiction and is completely unfounded. Why is it that a gay couple can be stopped from raising children while a straight couple who might be less responsible have no such issue?
 
Upvote 0
Re: Drakon 2K's post a few posts back.

On top of Vintage's masterly dissection of the closet homophobic self-justification contained therein, I would like to draw attention to the statement that the USA has a "stereotypical jocks vs nerds syndrome" (please excuse the correct spelling).

This is the America of TV shows or the real America? I think you will find that the situation is a bit more complex than you give credit for.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I dont have anything against gay people, or gay parents raising a child.
However, there are usually two kinds of gays: gays of whom you dont notice a thing, and gays who are all up in your face about their sexuality.
That being said, i'm an open-minded individual and i take care not to be prejudiced, even though it is natural to be prejudiced.

:confused:
 
Upvote 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiC-Disaster
I dont have anything against gay people, or gay parents raising a child.
However, there are usually two kinds of gays: gays of whom you dont notice a thing, and gays who are all up in your face about their sexuality.


Quote:
That being said, i'm an open-minded individual and i take care not to be prejudiced, even though it is natural to be prejudiced.
:confused:

I assume you think that is kind of contradicting?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dogbadger
Upvote 0
Now, i have once seen a gay couple walk on the street with a child at their hand, and while this would be fine otherwise imo, one of them was dressed as a woman, but didnt even bother to shave.
That is something that i couldnt help but feel weirded out about, and i wondered what kind of impact that would have on the child.
Truth is, i dont know, but i would guess that it could distort the child's vision for better or worse.
That is something to be watched out for, because imo gays who are all up in your face and all 'look at me, i'm gay!' are just immature and thus emotionally not responsible to raise a child.

I can agree with this. A super-mega-flaming gay man who dresses like a woman is not really a good example, but a good parent in terms of tender loving care? Quite possible. But I think Vintage has really hit the nail on the head with this one, so I guess nothing more should be said on the rights/capability of raising kids topic so instead I will pick something else out, namely the bit about the supermegaflaminghomosexual crossdresserthatdoesntshave.

I will take that and ask, what is everyone's opinion on androgyny?

Like this person.

Spoiler!


Noticably a guy, yet shares lady-looks, and is also straight! We also have the reverse for women.

Spoiler!


Most andro' people can be identified as the wrong gender at a very quick glance, but with just a little further examination, onlookers will know the real gender and more often than not, not be utterly disgusted as they would with e.g. a balding bearded man in a dress and they'd most likely not even give it a second thought. These people typically look the opposite, yet act as what they really are (with the exception of a fair few) and they may "gay/lez it up" in conversation occasionally just for the hell of it.

Personally, I admire the slightly androgynous and I sometimes I wish I was like that myself. What is everyone opinion on these creatures? Freaks of nature? Best thing since sliced bread? I'll just say wearing pink and makeup as a straight male is a major show of ballsiness in my opinion.
 
Upvote 0

Nestor, I could be wrong but in general terms:

Anyone who is up in your face about anything, be it politics, religion, your favorite beer, whether you agree with them or not, usually leaves a poor impression upon the people they represent. ***We all know that you can't label individuals because of a group, but most of us tend to do that anyways.

That is how I looked at what was written. But hey, what do I know :p

***Perhaps I mean you can't label a group because of certain individuals but I think most of you know what I meant :D
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dr. Pierre Chang
Upvote 0
I feel all of you guys managed to discuss the situation very thouroughly, but something in Drak's post caught my attention: I know that birth rates have been declining in Europe, but is there indeed a sentiment that this should be reversed? Like a push for higher birth rates or something? Some over here see it as a good thing to have a stable/slightly declining rate, as labor becomes more specific training-wise and less manpower-intensive, and as overpopulation strains the planet.

I'm just curious, as I rarely hear many opinions on the matter.
 
Upvote 0
It's a matter of attitude. I can very much accept different opinions on this matter, vice versa however there is an incredible arrogance that suggests exactly what I said. So stop turning everything around, I'm not the one who's implacting your opinion matters less.

Let's be quite frank: You're not saying it directly but sadly that's one impression based on your statements and for the most part that is due poor way of arguing and explaining things, and also your earlier comment about invalid examples and some other things also implies something regarding the overall context of the discussion even when you (possibly) don't intend it to be that way. This is sad a nature of text-based new media so it's even more easier to question something due lack of clear intensions. Half of the participants in the thread could be half-arsed trolls and it'd be difficult to figure out unless you ponder about it any further, and even then it's wild guesswork at best.

As for attitude let's make a presumption that we have severe problems in attitude. This is still one of those "me vs everything else" or even "us vs them" situation, as you can rationalise due the arrogant cockheads you're up against arguing are not worth it, and eventually it becomes self-fulfilling fallacy. However since there's some past statements in which certain someone who loves to complain about the overall lack of forum quality. Now ignoring the question why someone should give a rat's arse about some random dude or dudette on the internet it's pretty insulting to anyone that someone rambles wildly but refuses to engage it on any further once the whole arrogant cockhead- part becomes "true" based on single point of view. Being extremely hypocritical about the rules of conversation\discussion while challenging others about it is a very good way to lose any remote credibility, keeping the "quality" in mind. It's also quite evident when making an argument\a point and someone questions it, or makes some form of counterargument or point if you're supposedly keeping up with the quality, you're supposed to answer that rather than handwave and ignore based on the arrogant cockhead part, which on the other hand also implies something quite curious. Isn't this getting glamorous especially since this is remotedly supposed to be "serious business." ?

You could easily present any argument or point of view properly and keep the conversation and discussion flowing and people wouldn't have that much problems with them but for some reason you don't. Unless you're just trolling around -- which you could do quite well, I'll give you that -- sadly it's more and more leaning towards the opposite of the perceived attitude problem, even more so when it seems to heavily imply that subjective point of view based on experience would be universal for other people without actually you know, making it sure that what you're intending and going for.

(Yes that was ad hominem in some ways based on assumptions and potential possibilities given the lack of clarification for the most part, may Lord have mercy upon my soul and yadayada, have a cookie. Don't let it get to your head.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Nestor, I could be wrong but in general terms:

Anyone who is up in your face about anything, be it politics, religion, your favorite beer, whether you agree with them or not, usually leaves a poor impression upon the people they represent. We all know that you can't label individuals because of a group, but most of us tend to do that anyways.

That is how I looked at what was written. But hey, what do I know :p

My confusion is at the apparent contradiction of saying that you are not prejudiced then saying that there are only 2 types of gay, it's like saying there's only black and white. In my experience there are many shades of grey in between.. to say nothing of pink, green and purple.
 
Upvote 0