A brief apologue:
Say Person A has this type of candy called, oh I don't know, let's say "marriage". He's been enjoying marriage for many years. Not only is it delicious, but it's good for you too! Then Person B comes along, see's marriage, and wants some for himself. He askes the distributor of marriage if he can have it. When Person A hears about this, he is upset because he feels that if Person B also gets marriage, it will take away from how special it is to Person A. The distributor decides that he will give Person B marriage, but under the different name of "legal union". It is the exact same delicious candy with all the same health benefits, just a different name. This solution was acceptable to Person A, and he hoped that Person B enjoyed the candy as much as he did.
---Questions---
was Person B treated unfairly or unequally?
was a compromise made that allowed both Persons the benefits enjoyed by eating the candy?
is this a good analogy of the argument that religious groups were trying to make?
aside: didn't AIDS come from someone having sex with a monkey in Africa?
|