Quote:
Originally Posted by skins
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.
|
By the same token, why should the manufacturer of the candy be forced to rebrand the product, and why should Person B be forced to buy the rebranded product just so that Person A can feel special?
If "marriage" is so wonderful and healthy and has such a strong name recognition, why should this level of effort be put into marketing "marriage" by some other name?
Would allowing Person B to have his own "marriage" somehow reduce Person A's ability to enjoy his "marriage"? Would Person A's "marriage" be ruined because Person B is also enjoying his own "marriage"? Would Person A buy less "marriage" in the future because it's no longer his own special candy?