It's All About Love, Part I

Conceding the Field of Battle

Bob McCoskrie of FamilyFirst NZ recently appeared on TVNZ's breakfast show (along with a sniggering court jester) to discuss the homosexual "marriage" controversy  with showhost Rawdon Christie.  You can watch the clip here, if you wish.


http://tvnz.co.nz/breakfast-news/nigel-latta-and-bob-mccoskrie-debate-marriage-equality-video-5264957 

Now FamilyFirst does stirling work and we in no way wish to undermine McCoskrie.  However, we do need to talk about arguments and tactics and how to debate in a world dominated by touchy-feely-human-righty type thingies.  McCoskrie conceded at the outset that when it comes to homosexuals it is "all about love".
  Secondly, he conceded that these people deserve to have legal recognition, and then asserted they already have it through the civil unions legislation.

His argument then went on to defend the right of heterosexuals to have a distinct relationship category called marriage.  Now it seems to us that at this point, Bob has reduced the whole issue of homosexual "marriage" to a debate over trademarks.  Whilst not his intention to be sure, he has succeeded in trivialising the matter, which actually serves to strengthen the traction of his opponents' position.  If all you are worried about is branding, you risk making your argument much ado about very little.

So, what respective world-views, philosophies, and religions lie behind Bob's opposition to homosexual "marriage" and the support of Christie and the sniggering court jester for homosexual "marriage"?  These are the real issues.  Is Bob really suggesting that love truly exists in a relationship that God calls an abomination, and that "it's all about love"?  This is not a credible position.