Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Opens possible door for other forms of marriage that may include relatives and polygamist
Impacts pro-creation by creating less relationships where pro-creation is possible
Complicates adoption laws for those who desire to have children
Confuses gender identification
1. So? Like, how does this have a tangible effect on anything? Times change. Words change.
2. Does it? Like, is there a polygamy and incest movement out there full of millions of people who passionately want to marry their relatives or have half a dozen spouses? So this is... speculation at best.
3. What do you mean by that? Are you saying that if gay people are marrying each other, they're not able to marry heterosexual partners? Do you really think that people who are gay would not be in homosexual relationships if they're not allowed to get married? Or do you think that heterosexual people will not have children because gay couples can't have children biologically? Both of those don't make much sense.
4. How does that complicate adoption laws? How would it affect them at all? As far as I can tell, it would just make it easier for gay people to adopt children.
5. Huh? How is that even related? Gay people are not confused about their gender. Those are totally different issues.
I don't feel extremely strongly about this issue, but I just don't see how allowing consenting adults to get married hurts me or anyone else. It does hurt these people who are trying to create families and are not able to have a standard legal marriage to fall back on, so I feel like the reasons to prevent them from having those rights should be very very strong. That's just my own personal sense of justice, because homosexual people are not protected under federal equal rights laws. And another problem here is that something that *does* very tangibly damage the institution of marriage is no-fault divorce and the like, but you don't see people falling all over themselves to eliminate that. That seems hypocritical to me. I imagine people would take marriage much more seriously if they couldn't have a quickie divorce.
1. So? Like, how does this have a tangible effect on anything? Times change. Words change.
So can I change the meaning of taxes? Can I change the meaning of larceny?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimar
2. Does it? Like, is there a polygamy and incest movement out there full of millions of people who passionately want to marry their relatives or have half a dozen spouses? So this is... speculation at best.
3 or 4 decades ago, homosexuality was considered a mental illness. There is no telling where are society will go in the future. The point is, it opens the door for those things because many of the arguments being made for SSM can be made for those two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimar
3. What do you mean by that? Are you saying that if gay people are marrying each other, they're not able to marry heterosexual partners? Do you really think that people who are gay would not be in homosexual relationships if they're not allowed to get married? Or do you think that heterosexual people will not have children because gay couples can't have children biologically? Both of those don't make much sense.
If more people are in SSM, it may encourage more SSM relationships, especially if more children are being raised to have this as an option. Of course if there are more SSM, there are going to be less married couples capable of having children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimar
4. How does that complicate adoption laws? How would it affect them at all? As far as I can tell, it would just make it easier for gay people to adopt children.
Because only one of the parents is a biological parent, so the other parent has to go through adoption. Without going through those procedures that parent is not a legal parent. Some states do not have laws to support these, so it would require changes that match this scenario.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimar
5. Huh? How is that even related? Gay people are not confused about their gender. Those are totally different issues.
There are more cases where children who are born as one gender are now identifying themselves with the opposite gender. The term that is being used is gender identification disorder. Having two parents of the same sex, only makes things more confusing. What if you have a boy being raised by two women? It's just not possible to replace the role of father and father's influence on a boy. What incentive do those two women have to raise that boy specifically to a man?
So can I change the meaning of taxes? Can I change the meaning of larceny?
If the majority of people decided that larceny means something different, why not? If there was political will to change this definition, what's the problem? I really don't see the issue here. You'll remember that the Supreme Court decided that the Obamacare mandate is a tax. That's a different take on the meaning of tax if I've ever seen one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans
3 or 4 decades ago, homosexuality was considered a mental illness. There is no telling where are society will go in the future. The point is, it opens the door for those things because many of the arguments being made for SSM can be made for those two.
Why is this a problem? Different cultures and different times have totally different standards for right and wrong in this respect. You're a church-going man so I'll assume you remember that the Biblical figures Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings, correct? Those two are not generally thought of as disgusting perverts. If we look back at human history, it was generally ok to marry multiple women, or to marry a 12 year old girl, or to marry a first cousin. What we think of as wrong now- people have been doing it for thousands of years. OUR standards are the new ones. No one has any idea what we are going to think is wrong in 100 years, and that's ok.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans
If more people are in SSM, it may encourage more SSM relationships, especially if more children are being raised to have this as an option. Of course if there are more SSM, there are going to be less married couples capable of having children.
Ehh... I think you need to have a very... fluid view of sexuality to believe this, which I don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans
Because only one of the parents is a biological parent, so the other parent has to go through adoption. Without going through those procedures that parent is not a legal parent. Some states do not have laws to support these, so it would require changes that match this scenario.
So? I don't think I understand you... isn't this what people have to go through now? Are you saying the state will now *have* to allow the other partner to adopt the child? I don't actually know enough about adoptions to speak authoritatively on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans
There are more cases where children who are born as one gender are now identifying themselves with the opposite gender. The term that is being used is gender identification disorder. Having two parents of the same sex, only makes things more confusing. What if you have a boy being raised by two women? It's just not possible to replace the role of father and father's influence on a boy. What incentive do those two women have to raise that boy specifically to a man?
More children are identifiying as gender confused because more parents are entertaining this as a possibility. If a boy 50 years ago wanted to identify as a female, can you imagine how his parents would react? And, are you actually trying to convince me that two people of the same sex raising a child is something new? Aren't you the person that's very upset about the absence of African American men from family life? Are the young men being raised by their mothers and aunts and grandmothers confused about their gender, in your opinion? I know you think there's a lot wrong with that situation, but is gender identification one of the issues there? Are we seeing a disproportionate # of AA males who aren't quite sure if they're male or female? Are more of them turning out to be homosexuals? Better yet, there are entire generations of men of all races who had to be raised by women- because of wars. WWI, WWII, probably as far back as human civilization goes- the # of males has been thinned by war. This trauma is obviously not ideal for boys, but it has nothing to do with gender confusion! Everything I've ever read on this subject contradicts your view- people KNOW their gender and exhibit gender-specific preferences as early as infancy. If you offer a baby boy a choice between a truck and a baby doll, he picks the truck 9/10 times. Being raised by women isn't going to change that.
Bringing this BACK to the orginal topic. Im saddened by this. Hyattsville would have been a great location for a Chick Fil A. I dont think a Drive Thru would have been a good idea but a Walk-in would have done well. The DTs in Parking lots have don awful in PGC. Look at the ones in Largo, and Capitol Heights....Both have gridlocked the areas they are located in.
They could had looked into PG Plaza since they are trying to make it more "livelier" especially with UTC around the corner. Or they can still build one on the UTC parking lot as there is open field over there still.
They could had looked into PG Plaza since they are trying to make it more "livelier" especially with UTC around the corner. Or they can still build one on the UTC parking lot as there is open field over there still.
I hope they revisit it in the future.
I agree. There are open lease spaces even in Metro Shops at the metro station. The Drive Through makes no sense when the plan for that area is to increase walk-ability. UTC has tons of empty lease spaces. The UTC parking lot is temporary (doesn't seem like it though). Phase two of the project was to build a grocery store with condos on top. But Safeway backed out, so that put phase two in limbo. I saw plans last year for condos with street retail last year on the parking lot where the sign is, but they were pulled from a real estate management website. Perhaps that bit the bullet too. UTC was the poster child for TOD 6 years ago, not I think it's the poster child for how not to manage a great TOD project.
UTC should still be a TOD project. Especially with the demand for University Housing thanks to U of Maryland's "moratorium" on Upperclassman and Transfer students residing on campus housing. Chick Fil A would be great for that demographic. I see Hyattsville as a "hipster" area. Look at Arts District and Metro Shops. Not to mention with UTC alrady having students from not only Maryland residing there, but Catholic, Howard, and Trinity U students residing there as well.
UTC should still be a TOD project. Especially with the demand for University Housing thanks to U of Maryland's "moratorium" on Upperclassman and Transfer students residing on campus housing. Chick Fil A would be great for that demographic. I see Hyattsville as a "hipster" area. Look at Arts District and Metro Shops. Not to mention with UTC alrady having students from not only Maryland residing there, but Catholic, Howard, and Trinity U students residing there as well.
D.C.-based Bernstein paid an undisclosed amount for the approximately
302,000 square foot office building at 6505 Belcrest Road, off East West
Highway. A few weeks prior to that, it paid $11.04 million for the parking
garage at 3325 Toledo Road.
...
DeCain said Bernstein is under contract to buy a retail property fronting
East West Highway, where it reportedly has a grocery tenant in tow. “We
anticipate future transactions between the family and the Bernstein
Company,” said DeCain. “We have a lot of grinding work ahead of us, but
(the first two purchases are) fantastic news. It means this project is off its
back and starting to get up again.”
This is exactly what I was thinking. Why are people so enamoured with Chickfila in the first place, I have no idea. But a place with the affluence of PG county should have things like PF Changs, Cheesecake Factory, Bertuccis, etc. How does one petition for these things?
I looked at PF Chang and the Cheesecake Factory's menus and I wasn't able to find any entrees with low sodium. If I had my wish, I'd love to see healthy alternatives like Chop't Creative Salad or my personal favorite Mixt Greens.
I looked at PF Chang and the Cheesecake Factory's menus and I wasn't able to find any entrees with low sodium. If I had my wish, I'd love to see healthy alternatives like Chop't Creative Salad or my personal favorite Mixt Greens.
There's already a Sweetgreen in College Park. Though I hear Chopt is better, but much more expensive.
I looked at PF Chang and the Cheesecake Factory's menus and I wasn't able to find any entrees with low sodium. If I had my wish, I'd love to see healthy alternatives like Chop't Creative Salad or my personal favorite Mixt Greens.
It took us 50 years to get a Wegmans.... Let's be happy with that...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
