You’re in a conversation and someone says, “People should be able to love and marry whoever they want. Love is love.” What would you say? The slogan “love is love” seems to show up everywhere. It gets repeated by celebrities, politicians, teachers, activists, and teenagers. It appears on billboards, bumper stickers, and memes... it’s even been turned into a meme without words. Behind the slogan is an assertion: that the sincerity of affection is enough to justify any relationship, especially same-sex relationships, and that’s enough for that relationship to be called “marriage.” After all, who’s to say who can and can’t love each other? And why should people who are in love, as long as they are consenting adults, be prevented from being married if that’s what they want? The slogan was very effective in the push to legalize same-sex marriage. And today, “Love is Love” is used to justify other relationship arrangements as well, for example polyamory. However, “love is love” assumes all kinds of things about love that just aren’t true. So, the next time you come across “Love is Love” on social media or in a conversation, here are three things to keep in mind. Humans experience different kinds of love. Some relationships justify sexual intimacy; others absolutely do not. Parents love children. Grandparents love grandchildren. Brothers love sisters. Students love teachers. Friends love friends. We recognize these relationships as good and sincere expressions of love, but we also recognize these relationships as non-sexual and definitely not marriage. That’s because different relationships involve different expressions of love, and love cannot be reduced to just sex. And that means this slogan is simply wrong. The sincerity of affection is not enough to justify sexual intimacy, nor is it enough to call a relationship a “marriage.” In fact, in most sincerely affectionate human relationships, sexual intimacy would be distinctly unloving. “Love is love” ignores that humans have bodies. It may seem like an obvious thing to say, but sexual relationships involve our bodies. Human bodies are male or female, and the arrangement of human bodies carries very different potentials. This means that even when sincere, not all sexual love is the same. Think about it this way... if every single person in the world lived in a faithful, monogamous, affectionate, loving, and sincere heterosexual relationship, the world would have a future. That is because heterosexual love carries the potential of procreation. However, if every single person in the world lived in a faithful, monogamous, affectionate, loving, sincere homosexual relationship, the world would have no future. There would be no children. In other words, even if the same affection and emotional intensity are there, and even if we leave out questions about the moral nature of these relationships, it simply is not true to say love is love unless we pretend that our relationships do not involve bodies. If a sexual relationship is justified only by emotional intensity or sincerity, it’s impossible to condemn any sexual relationship between consenting adults as immoral. If love is love, in the sense that the phrase is often used, there is no longer reason to condemn any kind of sexual relationships between consenting adults, and there’s no reason to include those relationships in marriage. For example, why should we reject polyamory or limit marriage to only two people? Or, why withhold marriage from consenting siblings? In fact, it even becomes difficult to condemn relationships with minors, other than choosing an age of consent. All human societies, even the most permissive ones, have considered certain kinds of sexual relationships out of bounds, but when sexual morality is reduced to “love is love,” we can no longer say any are wrong. Even the idea of consent is inadequate since people often regret sexual decisions later in life. Though it sounds tolerant and harmless, the slogan “love is love” is well, silly. It contradicts what we know about love, about sex, about marriage, about bodies, and about people. Not all loves are the same. Many are not sexual, and we should never allow a slogan to put vulnerable people, especially minors, at risk. So, the next time someone says, “love is love,” remember that: Humans experience different kinds of love. Some relationships justify sexual intimacy; others absolutely do not. “Love is love” ignores that humans have bodies. If a sexual relationship is justified only by emotional intensity or sincerity, it’s impossible to condemn any sexual relationship between consenting adults as immoral.