PG Mall Development: Chick-Fil-A (Germantown, Bowie: 2014, gated, legally)

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by adelphi_sky

After many discussions and opinions on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that people are blowing the definition thing way out of proportion and it is a red herring argument against how the law is structured. I believe that no one is forcing upon others what marriage means to them. Nor does it destroy any religious definition of marriage. We can all agree that mans laws do not supersede what the Bible or any other religious text says in one's own religion The Christian definition of marriage still stands and will always stand. Each individual still possesses their own definition of what marriage is and means. No one is taking that away from anyone.

I think it is a matter of convenience when people try to ascribe their religious or cultural beliefs to laws for people of diverse faiths and cultures. There are many laws in this country that don't squarely line up with personal beliefs of others. Nor should we expect them to. America is the great experiment in that as a free nation, it must be careful to include all people without alienating or discriminating against others. That's hard to do with so much diversity.

It is my opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman. If congress needs to adopt a broader definition in order to provide civil rights to others, so be it. My definition won't change. If someone asks, I'll tell them. If someone else thinks it should also include same-sex couples, then that's their belief and they are entitled to it. The inclusion of rights same-sex couples is not taking anything away from my own marriage and what it means.

I agree with you that the term doesn't have to be re-defined. But, even if it is, it's only redefined in laws where people are afforded certain rights. To me that's fine. Words aren't the issue, it's the purpose behind them.

Because it's dangerous just to re-define words off of the premise of making things convenient for a group of people. This has nothing to do with religious beliefs. We have to start with understanding when marriage was defined in this country, what was the basis of that definition? Was it based on Christian beliefs, was it based on something else? Remember years ago, being gay was considered a mental illness. I think you can't re-define words just because. What if people wanted to re-define what religion is or what discrimination is? You set a dangerous precedent when you do that. I just believe that you can let gays have certain benefits without changing the definition of a word. It's unnecessary. I mean the whole argument doesn't even make sense. People are saying marriage equality, but homosexual and heterosexual (in general) relationships are not equal. They are two different types of relationships.

People are being blinded by this campaign for gay marriage not realizing that this is an agenda that has been set forth. The ultimate goal isn't just to get gay marriage. It goes far, far beyond that, people are just being duped into believing that this is just about one thing.

[Zimar]

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

Because it's dangerous just to re-define words off of the premise of making things convenient for a group of people. This has nothing to do with religious beliefs. We have to start with understanding when marriage was defined in this country, what was the basis of that definition? Was it based on Christian beliefs, was it based on something else? Remember years ago, being gay was considered a mental illness. I think you can't re-define words just because. What if people wanted to re-define what religion is or what discrimination is? You set a dangerous precedent when you do that. I just believe that you can let gays have certain benefits without changing the definition of a word. It's unnecessary. I mean the whole argument doesn't even make sense. People are saying marriage equality, but homosexual and heterosexual (in general) relationships are not equal. They are two different types of relationships.

People are being blinded by this campaign for gay marriage not realizing that this is an agenda that has been set forth. The ultimate goal isn't just to get gay marriage. It goes far, far beyond that, people are just being duped into believing that this is just about one thing.

I don't understand what you mean by "dangerous" in this context. Dangerous to whom? Dangerous to what? Is this physical danger? Psychological danger? I still do not understand what is the actual, tangible harm in this situation. Even if homosexual and heterosexual relationships are not "equal," what harm comes from treating them as equal? I just don't get it at all.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by Zimar

I don't understand what you mean by "dangerous" in this context. Dangerous to whom? Dangerous to what? Is this physical danger? Psychological danger?

Dangerous in a sense that you allow other matters to be re-defined strictly based on the political views of a group of people

Originally Posted by Zimar

I still do not understand what is the actual, tangible harm in this situation. Even if homosexual and heterosexual relationships are not "equal," what harm comes from treating them as equal? I just don't get it at all.

Because they aren't equal. What part of not equal is not clear to you?

[EducatedBro82]

This thread has been severely off topic now. Can we just agree to disagree and let Mods come in to close this?

[Zimar]

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

Dangerous in a sense that you allow other matters to be re-defined strictly based on the political views of a group of people



Because they aren't equal. What part of not equal is not clear to you?

That doesn't sound very dangerous at all. Words change all the time, based on the political views of a group of people (in this instance, the majority). Again, where is the harm here? Who is being hurt? Your usage of the word dangerous just seems arbitrary, as is your contention that homosexual relationships are not "equal." Ok, they're not equal to you. But who will be harmed if we ignore you and move on? It doesn't seem to me that anyone will be harmed in any way.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by Zimar

That doesn't sound very dangerous at all. Words change all the time, based on the political views of a group of people (in this instance, the majority). Again, where is the harm here? Who is being hurt? Your usage of the word dangerous just seems arbitrary, as is your contention that homosexual relationships are not "equal." Ok, they're not equal to you. But who will be harmed if we ignore you and move on? It doesn't seem to me that anyone will be harmed in any way.

I am not talking about same sex marriage, I am talking about setting a precedent for anything being redefined. It seems as though you like making decisions based on how you feel, which is okay for you but thank the Lord our country doesn't create laws based on people's emotion, well at least we're supposed to.

[Zimar]

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

I am not talking about same sex marriage, I am talking about setting a precedent for anything being redefined. It seems as though you like making decisions based on how you feel, which is okay for you but thank the Lord our country doesn't create laws based on people's emotion, well at least we're supposed to.

Ok, once again, you are not making a lot of sense. Why does it matter that marriage is being "redefined?" What else are you worried about being "redefined?" Words are redefined all the time. For the umpteenth time, who is going to be harmed by this? I don't really have any emotions about this, I just cannot see a legitimate reason to deprive people of a legal marriage when it will cause absolutely no harm to anyone and you have not been able to articulate otherwise.

Personally, I would prefer that marriage be a private contractual relationship defined by the parties, whoever they may be. That is closer to the historical definition of marriage than a strict definition by the state.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by Zimar

Ok, once again, you are not making a lot of sense. Why does it matter that marriage is being "redefined?" What else are you worried about being "redefined?" Words are redefined all the time. For the umpteenth time, who is going to be harmed by this? I don't really have any emotions about this, I just cannot see a legitimate reason to deprive people of a legal marriage when it will cause absolutely no harm to anyone and you have not been able to articulate otherwise.

Personally, I would prefer that marriage be a private contractual relationship defined by the parties, whoever they may be. That is closer to the historical definition of marriage than a strict definition by the state.

What words were re-defined in context of the law?

[tcave360]

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

Do people still go to Arby's?

I don't know, probably. The last time I was at an Arby's was back in 2011. And the one over in Forestville outside of the mall still be receiving some foot/drive-thru traffic whenever I be around there.

[tcave360]

Originally Posted by molukai

Arby's Curly Fries > Chick-fil-a Waffle Fries

This is what I love: Arby's Curly Fries w/ Cheese Dip vs. Chick-Fil-A Waffle Fries w/ Chick-Fil-A Sauce

It's too hard for me to choose!!! LOL