Love Is Love, but Sex Isn't Love
Sex Isn’t Love
“Love is love.” That’s one of the most popular mantras of the LGBT community. It’s cute, catchy, and fits well on bumper stickers and social media posts. It’s the sort of foolish notion that Progressive Christians such as Rob Bell use to defend their affirmation of LGBT behavior. It’s pervasive and annoying.
The general idea behind “love is love” is the common LGBT argument that two people should be able to love each other without societal discrimination or judgement, because homosexual love is, after all, a form of love. It is then theorized that we ought to encourage love regardless of the biological and social context. Anything less is implied to be either hypocritical or hateful.
At best, it’s a pointless argument. I’ll start there. Then, I’ll go on to briefly discuss how, at its worst, this mantra reinforces a dangerous abandonment of responsibility and sexual morality.
The “Love is love” argument is fraught with logical fallacies. At it’s core, it’s a straw man argument built on the false projection that those opposed to LGBT behavior are somehow opposed to members of the same sex loving one another. That couldn’t be further from the truth.
Religiously, Jesus is said to have deeply loved His friend, student, and apostle John. The ultimate Biblical monarch, David, is said to have loved his friend Jonathan more than any woman (and David loved a lot of women). Moreover, the entire Bible is filled with examples and overt commandments for God’s people to sincerely love almost everyone.
Secularly, virtually everyone is supportive of platonic love between members of the same sex. It’s the cornerstone of father-son and mother-daughter relationships. It exists between siblings. It’s widespread and encouraged among teammates, girl squads, soldiers, bandmates, friends, frat bros, and virtually every other grouping of same-sex people.
It is flatly incorrect to suggest that significant amounts of people, especially staunchly religious people such as myself, are opposed to homosexual behavior because we think certain people should not love one another. The truth is that just about everyone wants everyone to love everyone. No one really cares if two men admire or desire the best for one another. No one really cares if two gals want to share a home, mix their money, spend every hour together, and think the world of each other. No one is opposed to love. But when it comes to homosexuality, what’s love got to do with it? Not a damn thing.
Here’s a statement that’s so obvious it’s annoying to even have to write it: Those opposed to LGBT behavior are opposed to homosexual behavior. Biblically, homosexual behavior is condemned as sin (along with a host of other sexual behaviors). Even the direst and oldest of Old Testament laws maintain that apart from certain sexual behaviors, the people remain innocent. Meaning that it is the actual acts of gay or lesbian sex that are condemned. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not people love one another or even how they perceive their sexual orientation. It’s not as though a certain number on the Kinsey scale suddenly triggers divine retribution.
Everyone will agree that love is love. But it’s risky to suggest that love is sex or vice versa. And that’s the issue here.
To be clear: When the LGBT banners proclaim “love is love,” they are not talking about love. They’re talking about sex. That’s the issue on the table. Homosexual sex is literally the defining behavior that makes one either gay or lesbian. By conflating love with sex, this mantra muddies the waters of discourse, reduces an argument to silliness, and reinforces the errant idea that love and sex are synonymous or inherently linked.
Love is not sex. And sex is absolutely not love. In an ideal marriage, love and sex complement one another. Nevertheless, they are not the same. On that, we need to be clear.
When we conflate love and sex — and it’s not just the LGBT community that does so — we falsely represent both love and sex. Love is a broad range of emotions. Sex is a broad range of behaviors. We need to keep them defined in their respective lanes. As it turns out, most experiences of love are not sexual. Billions of people experience love without ever having even the slightest sexual activity or thought. As a married man, I love many, many people, both women and men. But I only have sex with my wife. On the other matter, plenty of people have sexual behavior that is in no way linked to love or any sort of affection. There are even married people who may not emotionally love one another but still persist in maintaining a vibrant and consensual sex life. It’s not ideal, but that’s their prerogative. When we blur the lines between love and sex, we run the risk of supporting harmful or untrue notions of both.
The examples are rough but necessary. Rape and molestation victims need to clearly understand that what they experienced was not love — despite what may have been said at the time. When a person forces sex upon another, we ought not teach the victim that they have “loved” or even “made love to” their attacker nor vice versa. They didn’t experience love. They merely experienced sex. But the examples aren’t always that extreme. What about disability? Is a person who is incapable of sex fully affirmed in their capability to love? And what about interchanging the concepts of love and sex in marriage? Spouses need to know that their shared love doesn’t automatically translate into desirable sex. Moreover, monogamous love isn’t a guarantee of sexual fidelity. And sexual fidelity doesn’t inherently generate love.
Perhaps most pervasively in its impact: There’s the false idea that sex is the inherent fruit of love. This is a cornerstone argument for advocates of homosexuality. Contrary to the non-consensual pleading of some, everyone needs to know that sex isn’t an obligation of love. It is reasonable and righteous to experience love — even romantic love — without either party being obliged to participate in or tolerate sexual activity. Withholding sexual consent and/or practicing abstinence is fully compatible with love. It should never be taught nor implied that sexuality must be intertwined with love.
Sex doesn’t inherently produce love. Countless people (especially young adults) need to know that having sex with someone won’t automatically make them love you. Likewise, they need to also know that not everyone who desires to have sex with them also loves them. Sex isn’t love.
Sex is a behavior. For the sane, behaviors are choices. Choices ought to be freely debated on their own merits and from every angle. While it can be difficult to fully control the emotions of one’s love, it is reasonable and ought to be expected that the sane should govern their behaviors, including their sexual ones. That’s neither hate nor a phobia — it’s a normative part of society. More on that another day…
— John