Well I'm not sure if you're trying to say something more that you think should be 'obvious' from reading the page... But here's just where I go "Meh, I just don't know about that. It doesn't seem to click."
The world isn't being destroyed by democrats or republicans, red or blue, liberal or conservative, religious or atheist -- the world is being destroyed by one side believing the other side is destroying the world. The world is being hurt and damaged by one group of people believing they're truly better people than the others who think differently. The world officially ends when we let our beliefs conquer love. We must not let this happen.
There are some real things
and situations out there behind words like say, poverty, global warming, inequality, discrimination... The list goes on. They can be measured. So if one group tends to support candidates who actually make a difference one way or another on those things, then group affiliations do
make a difference. Now if you don't believe that (just for example) Democrats give the rich any fewer tax breaks than Republicans, maybe it all just doesn't matter in that view. Yet even IF that were the case on so many issues at a level that mattered to one: Even that being true, would not explain just how placing importance on the argument is itself 'destroying the world' more than political factions.
What is the unit of measurement here that gets used to prove "love" would solve -- what issues exactly? It may have a feelgood sound cause then well everyone could just shut up and go Home (TM?) which must be the most important thing right -- along with Family, though that sounds an awful lot like 'Family Values'
in my knowledge of how these conversations usually go. But it's alll getting terribly apples and oranges for me, unless that is spelled out.
When someone says let's just "love" and live together no matter what... There's always a little nagging question of, okay, and what are the default terms then if I continue associating with you? Since we don't seem to agree on the things we had previously attempted to formulate in terms of you know -- issues, policies, groups trying somehow
to influence the terms of social life... Then whatever would we fall back on?
And there will be some creeping feeling of "You must assume that if we fell back on this, it won't be any ground rules at play already that your group isn't basically happy with." So if you like big capital to dominate society or see that as a simple inevitability, for example... Well sure then
it's relatively easy to say, what's to argue about anyway, let's all just go on and pretend all we do (and don't do) while living in a household together has nothing to do with any of that.
Saying you can't stand living with someone who may support all sorts of discrimination and inequality in his choice of political platforms is NOT obviously going to cause the end of the world. Unless you are talking about some other world entirely thank you. It's not a humanitarian tragedy to say that. But there may be community consequences to living together where each household can only do so many things on some choices. And those consequences go beyond simply what people vote for as individuals.