PG Mall Development: Chick-Fil-A (condo, house, living in)

[RamblingMan]

Originally Posted by scrapper105

We have a Wegmans in PGCo. Whole Foods is coming by the end of 2014.

Where will the Whole Foods be located?

[Khemistry]

Originally Posted by RamblingMan

Where will the Whole Foods be located?

Google is your Friend

[EdwardA]

Originally Posted by Cruzincat

If someone I don't know, murders someone I don't know, does that affect me? No. Should we allow it to happen without punishing the offender? Should murder be encouraged as a lifestyle choice?

I am not trying to equate murder with gay marriage. I am just trying to show that some things that may not affect you personally can affect society negatively. Do you want your kids to grow up thinking any lifestyle choice they make will never cause them any anguish or harm? Where does one draw the line? Do you draw my line? Do I draw yours? If I thought stealing was an OK lifestyle would you want your kids to hear that opinion? How about something totally legal, like over eating? Should we allow schools to teach our kids that eating whatever they want will never hurt them?

There are all kinds of things that you can do or allow others to do that may not impact me, but the acceptance of doing these thing can have an influence on future choices by our children.

I've never understood this argument that because gay marriage doesn't affect you therefore you shouldn't care. What an awful place the world would be if folks only cared about things that affected them personally.

[EdwardA]

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.

There is no culture known to man where gay marriage existed before the late 20th century. SO the definition of marriage has been pretty consistent since time immemorial it has been between men and women. Now different cultures have variations of marriage but the gender components have always been consistent across all cultures even in cultures with permissive attitudes towards homosexuals.

What's going on now is a fad being pushed by coastal elites through the media. Homosexuals marrying is not only an affront against God, it's an affront against nature and mankind and should have no quarter in the USA.

[EdwardA]

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? 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.

Dangerous to the cultural and moral fabric of this country. A country that permits everything stands for nothing.

[Zimar]

Originally Posted by EdwardA

Dangerous to the cultural and moral fabric of this country. A country that permits everything stands for nothing.

That doesn't mean anything to me because it's too vague. Give me a tangible example of the cultural and moral fabric of the country being harmed. Something, anything, that is real and actual harm. Are people going to start having orgies in the streets because gay people can get married? I would accept that as harm. Your statement above could apply to almost anything:

Extra large sodas encourage gluttony, which is dangerous to the cultural and moral fabric of this country.
Game of Thrones encourages violence, which is dangerous to the cultural and moral fabric of this country.
City-data encourages endless stupid debates, which stresses people out, which is dangerous to the cultural and moral fabric of this country.

And so on and so forth.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by Zimar

I answered this question earlier in the thread. I'm not going to repeat myself, I'm just going to note that you have not yet articulated any type of actual harm done to anyone or anything by allowing homosexuals to legally get married.

Before you start asking people questions, because I know how people with a certain mindset like to avoid answering question, rather than dealing with the actual truth....I went back and read what you wrote. Your argument is that declaring Obamacare as a tax is a way of redefining a word? That is not an example of what I am talking about. Obamacare is a type of legislation, not a word. And on top of that, it doesn't even change the meaning of the word tax (if that is your argument). Outside of this nation, that legislation would not have any meaning. Outside of this country, marriage has an actual meaning. How are the two the same? I'm talking about a word that has not been defined by this country? Did they need health insurance in medieval times? The concept of health insurance itself, didn't even start until the 19th century in this nation, which at that time it wasn't even health insurance. It evolved to that, so I'm trying to understand where you are going with this. I'm asking when has this nation redefined words (not policies). For example, have we re-defined the word tax? What about larceny? What about adultery?

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by Zimar

That doesn't mean anything to me because it's too vague. Give me a tangible example of the cultural and moral fabric of the country being harmed. Something, anything, that is real and actual harm. Are people going to start having orgies in the streets because gay people can get married? I would accept that as harm. Your statement above could apply to almost anything:

Extra large sodas encourage gluttony, which is dangerous to the cultural and moral fabric of this country.
Game of Thrones encourages violence, which is dangerous to the cultural and moral fabric of this country.
City-data encourages endless stupid debates, which stresses people out, which is dangerous to the cultural and moral fabric of this country.

And so on and so forth.

So then what should we allow and not allow? I think that is the question that is being asked. If you argue that you see nothing wrong gay marriage, then what if I see nothing wrong with people stealing? Are you okay with that? You can't base laws on how you feel. If we did that, we would be an immoral society.........whoops too late.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by RamblingMan

Where will the Whole Foods be located?

Don't mind the rudeness. There is a plan to build one in Riverdale Park in the infamous Cafritz Property project, but it has faced a number of challenges. I'm not sure of the status of the project, but I have heard a lot of people want to stop it because it is right in the middle of a single family home community off of Route 1.

[Zimar]

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

So then what should we allow and not allow? I think that is the question that is being asked. If you argue that you see nothing wrong gay marriage, then what if I see nothing wrong with people stealing? Are you okay with that? You can't base laws on how you feel. If we did that, we would be an immoral society.........whoops too late.

Umm... why is this getting so repetitive? Stealing actually harms another person, as I said earlier in this thread. If you steal something from me not only do I feel violated, I am missing one of my possessions. Is this really that hard? If you are in a gay relationship, that has absolutely no effect on me at all. That is what I mean by harm. I have no emotions about this issue AT ALL. I go to a very conservative church, and everyone seems so horrified about gay people getting married, and I honestly just do not understand why they feel so strongly about it at all. I feel like I have heard pretty much every argument against gay marriage, and none of them are convincing. It is not my job to decide how other people conduct their private, personal affairs, including their contracts, which includes their marriages. This is one area where I really feel government intervention is not necessary. Do you feel that of all things, government is the moral and cultural arbiter? You don't want the government restricting guns, or managing healthcare, but you want them restricting your personal life and affairs? Let people manage their own relationships.