“Love is Love.” It’s the new mantra of our culture, the moral wisdom of the age. It’s the battle cry of a movement led by those not so wise as a sage. (Channeling my inner Dr. Seuss.)
Joining the fray, the Coca-Cola Company has launched their “Love is Love” campaign in Hungary. Peppered throughout train stations, on billboards, and on their Hungarian Facebook page, their ads feature both opposite-sex and same-sex couples with the hashtag #loveislove. The campaign came days before this year’s “Love Revolution”-themed Sziget Festival, a week-long music and art event held annually in Budapest.
The message this slogan speaks is a no-brainer: “Male or female? Who cares? Love is love, and it’s all good! As Coca-Cola stated in a recent e-mail, the ads “do indeed try to convey a message . . . our belief that everyone has a right to love and that the feeling of love is the same for all” (emphasis added).
Kudos to those who developed the slogan, for it has rhetorical force. It appeals to something innate: the desire for romantic love. And in particular, it proposes love as the foundation of a sexual relationship, which is noble and worthy of praise (something we can’t say about the motivations behind the “hookup” culture).
But when you think it through, “Love is Love,” the way it is used in this slogan, simply can’t be true.
Consider, for example, that when the slogan is used, “love” is rarely defined. And when it is defined, it’s usually called a “feeling,” as Coca-Cola Co. did in its defense of the ads. (Not too different from “Taste the feeling!”)
The problem is that it is so easy to hijack the term “love” and justify almost anything. The grotesque North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), for example, does just that. They seek to justify sexual acts between adult males and young boys in the name of “love,” stating on their website,
NAMBLA’s goal is to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by . . . educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love (emphasis added).
Adopting the same reasoning as Coca-Cola Co., NAMBLA appeals to the rights of all to express love through their bodies: “We support the rights of youth as well as adults to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies.”
Every bit of so-called wisdom that “Love is Love” embodies—the feeling of love is the same for all and that everyone has a right to express that love—justifies the abuse that NAMBLA promotes.
Now, someone will inevitably snap back, “What NAMBLA promotes isn’t true sexual love. Minors aren’t really in a position to understand what’s involved in a sexual relationship. Therefore, they can’t really consent. The slogan ‘Love is Love’ is only meant to express the idea that biological sex is irrelevant to romantic love and its expression in sexual activity among consenting adults.”
A member of NAMBLA, however, could counter and say their sexual relationships with minors are consensual, as indicated in the above quote. But that aside, when push comes to shove those who live by “Love is Love” don’t really think all sexual love is equal. For these people, some things rob sex of its power to express true love, such as young age.
But if biological age has something to do with determining appropriate or inappropriate expressions of sexual love, perhaps biological sex does as well? Why should we think biological sex is exempt? Perhaps sexual activity among members of the same sex is not a legitimate expression of sexual love.
The only way we can know whether this is true or not is to know whether same-sex sexual activity involves willing what’s good for the beloved concerning his or her sexual powers, since the essence of love is to will the good of another (Summa Theologiae I-II:26:4; II-II:23:1).
If same-sex sexual activity is not a good use—but an abuse—of our sexual powers, as traditional sexual ethics claims, then to engage in it is to reject the order of the good inscribed in the nature of human sexual activity. It would be an expression of contempt to use the good of human sexuality against what is good for the human person, as if the latter a kind of evil to be supplanted, or an obstacle to be removed.
The perversity of such behavior would be akin to a doctor who engages in her activity of healing as a doctor only to make someone ill. In such a scenario, the doctor positively rejects her good as a doctor—namely, healing— as an evil to be avoided. For a doctor to reject the order of a good doctor can only merit the charge of being an evil doctor.
Similarly, if same-sex sexual activity is an abuse of our sexual powers (which this author proves it does), then it entails a rejection of the human good for sex.
But actions that entail a rejection of the order of the human good cannot possibly be expressions of authentic love, even if they are done in the name of love. Such actions would be directly opposed to love, showing disdain for the other rather than appreciation. In the words of Karol Wojtyla (Pope St. John Paul II), such a love could only be called an “evil love.”
In light of this, it becomes evident that the “Love is Love” slogan is a smoke screen that distracts us from the real question: does same-sex sexual activity will the good of the other?
If it does, then the slogan is a true bit of moral wisdom. But if it doesn’t, then the slogan’s wisdom just ain’t “the real thing.”
Who wants a mantra that’ll come back to haunt ya!
***This article was originally published by Catholic Answers Magazine Online on August 13, 2019.