*Disclaimer: controversial adult content is mentioned in this post. Read with caution. 
Two years ago a friend of mine pointed out that there was an error in the logic of the motto that has been repeatedly emphasized to promote the LGBTQ community: “Love is love is love is love.” My friend explained that you can’t define something by saying it is what it is. For example, if someone asked you what a train is, you wouldn’t respond by saying, “A train is a train.” In the same way, the aforementioned mantra does not clarify anything at all about love, despite its goal of expounding on it.
What they mean by the phrase “love is love” is that if a person says he/she loves another person, that love should be legal, acceptable, and normal. I’ve been mulling this over and I just want to mention a few thoughts I’ve been tossing around in my mind. If love is okay so long as it is called love, does that make pedophilia okay? What about necrophilia? Bestiality? Premarital sex? Take a moment to ponder that idea. All four of those words are sexual, you might argue. And you would be right.
Are those sexual preferences okay if done in the name of love?
If your logic leads you to say yes, this conversations ends here. If, however, your logic or emotions lead you to say no, loving and then having sex with a child or animal or dead body or someone other than your spouse is not and never will be okay, then let’s continue talking.
Where do we draw the line? Who gets to draw the line? If your neighbor’s logic led him to believe that yes, love is love regardless of the details, do you draw the line for yourself and for your neighbor by putting laws in place to prevent these acts? Or do you just draw the line for yourself and let your neighbor “love” (and other things) with whomever/whatever he chooses?
My personal conviction is that this is where we have messed up, where we (humanity as a whole) have erred. We were not the ones meant to draw the lines between right and wrong, whether that means right/wrong for who to love, who to have sex with, what to eat, how to spend our time, etc. The truth is that there is One who was meant to draw those lines, and I plan to address Him as The Only.
The Only created this world, this galaxy, this universe, every square inch from the most distant, unreached star to the fibers that construct each blade of grass in your yard. He was uncreated. He is timeless. (If you start to ponder about Him and the possibility of Him, that’s a great place to start.)
On this particular planet, He breathed life into beings, very versatile creatures like the axolotl or the Saiga antelope. The Only splashed color on flowers and sunsets and everything in between. He was and is the beginning of all things. All art is only possible because of His original creation, and He is the source of beauty.
As the finale of His glorious symphony, He gave a special privilege to a very unique creature, the human. The Only made humankind in His image. In each of the billions that ever existed and will exist, there is a unique wanting and pointing.
First, the wanting: there is an unmistakeable void deep in the soul of each man and woman that can only be satisfied by a continual filling from The Only. This certain restlessness and yearning for peace is like The Only’s fingerprint on the heart of His precious sons and daughters. (If you recognize this wanting in yourself and want to know what to do about it, let me know!)
Second, the pointing: there is an inner working that calls each human to point his or her soul in the direction of The Only. The spritely dancer moves and feels her muscles respond to the music or the silence, and little does she know she is mimicking The Only who originally danced over her. The famished father works and sweats and ignores the dull ache in his back to earn his wages and provide for his loved ones, and The Only is beckoning to him and saying, “I am Provider.”
You see, The Only is everywhere, in each person, including you reading this. There is a wanting and a pointing inside you, whether you have eyes to see or not. The Only crafted you inside your mother’s womb with care and precision and detail. He knew what your favorite color would be, the first time you would cuss, and how many tears you would end up shedding over the course of your lifetime. He knew when you would take your first breath, and He knows when you will breathe your last. The Only is acutely aware of every fear that paralyzes you and each lie you believe about yourself and your neighbor.
I could go on and on about Him. Think about Him. Ponder Him. Talk to Him. Listen to Him. He’s there whether you want to believe it or not.
So, as you may have guessed, The Only is the one who was meant to draw those aforementioned lines. And He did. He tells us who to love: everybody. He tells us who to have sex with: wife with husband, husband with wife. He also has things to say about what to eat and how to spend our time. He has lots to say on lots of things (as you can imagine, for He has always been). He is the source of all wisdom, joy, peace, and yes, love. He can define it for you (and He has). He can show you what it looks like (and He did). He can teach you about it (and He will, if you ask).
My goal is to change the conversation. We are having the wrong conversations. Were we meant to love everybody? Absolutely. Were we meant to have sex with whomever we want whenever we want to because we love that person? No; The Only has a better plan for us. Have we lost the meaning of love? Probably. If we want to redefine it in a way that aligns with truth, The Only has several things to say about it. Let’s start there.
“And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.” -1 John 4:16
In your article, a question you ask is, “If love is okay so long as it is called love, does that make pedophilia okay?” Not only do you mention pedophilia, but you also mention things like necrophilia and bestiality; you also inquire the reader where the line is to be drawn when examining these sexually-inherent words.
After reading through this entry, I found it difficult to understand how relationships within the LGBTQ community are comparable to these things you have mentioned. To answer your question as to where the line must be drawn, I find that the answer is quite simple: consent.
You will notice that neither an animal nor a child being preyed upon are capable of mentally/emotionally consenting to the individual targeting said dead person/child—a lack of consent is inherent in these sexual acts. Further, there is nothing intrinsically predatory about same-sex relationships, and this is also a core reason as to why pedophilia and necrophilia have been deemed both taboo and illegal.
I also find it worth noting that the difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships is largely due to one shared trait: the presence or absence of the SRY gene. In humans, this nucleotide sequence, being located on the Y chromosome, encodes for male sex differentiation. In male and female homosexual relationships, this gene is either expressed in both partners or in neither (respectively, of course). The reason I find this worth mentioning is because I want to point out that, in essence, this is what differentiates these two relationships—nitrogenous base pairs that encode for external genitalia.
This is not as much as an angry response as it is an observation; I think it is an important discussion that needs to be had when discussing those in relationships with the same sex so we (as a society) work to discontinue the narrative that homosexual relationships are comparable to acts as inherently heinous and visibly destructive as pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality. Thank you for taking the time to read this.
LikeLike
Thank you for your response! I understand your feedback and have received similar feedback from other readers.
You will notice that I also compared homosexual love to another example you did not mention – premarital sex. The examples I chose (pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, and premarital sex) are all examples of engaging in things that are less than God’s best for us. I will be writing and posting a follow-up blog post that elaborates on this because I must not have clearly communicated my point concerning this.
In response to your explanation of consent, I do not think that argument is quite as black and white as you and other responders are claiming. At what age can a child accurately recognize “love” and verbalize true consent? Since our brains are not fully developed until well into our early 20s, technically we are not able to fully comprehend and maturely decide to give our consent (about lots of decisions, not merely sexual ones) until then. I feel like that alone makes the consent response invalid.
I have not heard about or researched the SRY gene you mentioned, so I will have to look into it more before responding.
Thanks for taking your time to respond in an amicable way! 🙂
LikeLike
I’m not exactly sure how the continued development of the brain renders what I mentioned as invalid. Firstly, a child is defined as a prepubescent individual; quite frankly, I don’t see how in any circumstance one could believe any boy or girl of this age range can consent to sexual activity of an older individual or think it isn’t as “black-and-white” as what it is. Perhaps you see a “grey area” in the consent of prepubescent boys and girls (as this is whom pedophiles, by definition, target), but I do not. And while of course the human brain may continue to develop past the age of twenty, this does not mean that a 19-year-old cannot provide informed and freely-given consent. Luckily for humans, there are developmental milestones that occur cerebrally (especially of prefrontal cortical functioning) that have actually allowed well-informed researchers to aid in the discussion in when an individual is able to consent despite the individual’s brain not being fully developed. Despite not being fully cognitively developed, these individuals are capable of producing well-informed awareness because they have met this cognitive marker. And just to clarify, I don’t want you to think that I find age to be the only factor that is included in the discussion of consent—I am aware of other neurocognitive deficits and delays that may occur due to various causes (such as Alzheimer’s). Also, I noticed that you mentioned premarital sex as well, but I felt no need to mention it since it was not relevant to the conversation of consent or relevant to that of measurably harmful sexual behaviors.
Additionally, my mentioning of the SRY gene is not necessary for you to argue with or expand upon. Ultimately, the purpose of mentioning this was to demonstrate one of the very fickle (and not inherently or observably harmful) differences between a heterosexual and homosexual relationship.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think we have lost the meaning of love. I have seen same-sex love that is patient, kind, that does not envy, that doesn’t boast, and that isn’t proud. While of course you are entitled to disagree, I feel as though I am entitled to state my observations as well. When I say this, please don’t go under the impression that I am merely voicing the opinions from a secular stance as I am not a Christian—that would be an injustice to those others that worship and follow the teachings of Jesus and do not find all of the Bible to be divinely-inspired (as they argue it was compiled and written by man) and also those Christians that feel as though the original interpretation regarding homosexual relationships was lost. While I cannot argue on behalf of those individuals (as I am an atheist and have no reason to), I felt as though that would be worth clarifying as well.
LikeLike
Thank you for clarifying. You do a great job of clearly communicating what you are thinking. I tried to keep my response concise, so I did not get to elaborate to the full extent of my point in mentioning brain development. I do, however, appreciate your elaboration. I understand the stance you represent. I have quite a few thoughts in response to everything you said, but I am trying to keep my comments concise, as I mentioned. You have given me a great idea of how I can expand my typed thoughts. Thank you 🙂
LikeLike