Love Cannot Be Legislated

The Criminalisation of Love

Love is not a crime, and consenting love is not a sin. It is the purest expression of our humanity — a bond that must be protected, not persecuted and never denied. Yet around the globe, laws continue to criminalise consensual love — through bans on same-sex relationships, restrictions on interfaith unions, and other consensual relationships deemed unlawful or unacceptable by authority (Human Dignity Trust, 2025).

Faith and Law

Sometimes the justification is that such relationships are “offensive.” But offensive to whom? Offensive to a religion? Not all people share the same faith — nor should they be compelled to live under its rules. What is offensive to one group cannot become the basis for universal law. Religions, by their very nature, are grounded not in demonstrable fact but in faith. Believers may hold with absolute conviction that their god, or the object of their devotion, regards certain acts as offensive. Yet conviction does not equal certainty, and private belief cannot justify public prohibition.

History shows the dangers of turning “offence” into law. In medieval and early modern Europe, blasphemy laws criminalised speech that challenged church doctrine, with penalties ranging from imprisonment to execution (Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition, 1997). Today, colonial-era provisions in South Asia still criminalise acts deemed “offensive” to religion, and are frequently misused to silence minorities and critics (Human Rights Watch, 2022). In both cases, offence was never about preventing harm — it was about enforcing conformity and protecting power.

Faith, however deeply held, remains personal; it cannot legitimately serve as the foundation of law. Religious commitments should remain within the private sphere — in the home, in worship, and in communities of shared conviction — and even there only insofar as the rights and freedoms of members are not infringed. No community, however devout, is entitled to trample the human or civil rights of its members under the banner of faith.

The Principle of Consent

From an ethical standpoint, consent is the cornerstone of moral relationships. Kant’s principle of humanity insists that no person should be treated merely as a means to an end (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785). When two people give each other free and informed consent in love, they affirm each other’s worth. Feminist ethics, too, recognises love as a practice of care and mutual recognition (Gilligan, In a Different Voice, 1982). To criminalise that act is not only unjust, it is dehumanising.

Consent, however, is not a one-time contract but an ongoing choice. Even in the context of commercial sex, where money changes hands, consent can be withdrawn at any moment. Payment does not purchase a person’s autonomy. In many countries, this principle is recognised in law: continuing sexual activity after consent has been revoked is still assault or rape (California Penal Code § 261.6; UK Sexual Offences Act 2003). Where laws fail to affirm this, it is the law itself that fails justice.

Love as a Human Necessity

Yet love is more than an ethical or political right — it is a human necessity, more fundamental even than freedom itself. Freedom allows us to choose, but love gives us a reason to live. Without love, freedom becomes emptiness; without care, autonomy collapses into isolation.

Psychology has long shown that human beings cannot flourish in the absence of secure relationships. John Bowlby’s attachment theory (1969) demonstrated that infants deprived of consistent caregiving develop anxiety, depression, and impaired social functioning. The tragic case studies of institutionalised children in Romanian orphanages during the 1980s, who suffered severe developmental delays due to lack of affection and emotional bonding, illustrate this vividly (Rutter et al., 1998). Without love and human touch, even physical survival is jeopardised.

Abraham Maslow (1943) placed love and belonging just above food and safety in his hierarchy of needs, recognising it as foundational to growth. His insight has been supported by decades of empirical research: people who experience social exclusion or rejection show heightened stress responses, impaired immune function, and even increased mortality risk (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). To be cut off from love is not just emotionally painful — it is physiologically damaging.

More recently, the Harvard Study of Adult Development — the longest-running study of human well-being — confirmed that supportive relationships are directly linked to longer life, better health, and greater happiness (Waldinger & Schulz, 2010). Wealth, fame, and status were found to be far less important to life satisfaction than close, loving relationships. In other words: love is medicine.

Case histories further reveal the depth of this truth. Survivors of solitary confinement often describe the deprivation of human contact as worse than physical torture, leading to hallucinations, anxiety, and suicidal despair (Haney, 2003). Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl (1946), reflecting on his time in concentration camps, wrote that it was the memory of love and the hope of reunion that sustained him when all else was stripped away.

Without love, we stand empty. With it, we not only endure — we grow, heal, and become fully human.

Steps Backward

And yet, even in democratic Europe, steps backward occur. In Italy, surrogacy was banned in 2004, and in 2024 lawmakers extended the ban abroad, criminalising Italians who pursue surrogacy even in countries where it is legal. Though written as a universal measure, the impact falls hardest on same-sex couples, who already face barriers to adoption and assisted reproduction (Euronews, 2025). Instead of aligning with the wider arc of human rights, Italy narrowed it — turning law into a barrier against love and family.

Such reversals matter because progress in human rights is not guaranteed. Gains achieved through decades of struggle can be eroded in a single legislative act. History teaches us that when laws regress, those most vulnerable bear the heaviest cost. In this case, children who might otherwise have grown up in loving homes are denied families, while couples are left with fewer or no paths to parenthood.

Nor is Italy alone. Poland has tightened restrictions on reproductive rights, moving towards a near-total ban on abortion even in cases of foetal abnormality (Human Rights Watch, 2021). Hungary’s government amended its constitution to define family strictly in terms of heterosexual marriage, effectively excluding same-sex couples from adoption and parental recognition (ILGA-Europe, 2021). These measures, justified by appeals to tradition or religion, shrink the space of love and freedom under the guise of protecting morality.

The problem with going backwards is not only the harm it inflicts in the present but also the precedent it sets for the future. When once-secured rights are rolled back, the very principle of universality is undermined. Human rights are meant to be indivisible and inalienable, but regression signals that they are conditional — granted by political whim rather than anchored in human dignity.

Philosophically, this represents a betrayal of human progress. John Stuart Mill argued that liberty is essential to individual and collective flourishing (On Liberty, 1859). Each regression undermines that flourishing, shrinking the sphere of possibility for future generations. To criminalise love, reproduction, or family formation is not to preserve society but to impoverish it.

Conclusion

To deny people the right to love freely is not just to limit their choices — it is to deny their humanity at its deepest level. Love is not an indulgence or a luxury: it is a condition of survival, growth, and flourishing. Laws that criminalise consensual love, restrict family formation, or impose religious morality on unwilling citizens do not defend society; they corrode it.

The ethical principle of consent, the psychological evidence of love’s necessity, and the historical record of progress all converge on the same truth: freedom without love is hollow, and justice without compassion is incomplete. Where societies respect love in its diverse forms, they create resilience, health, and genuine solidarity. Where they suppress it, they cultivate fear, isolation, and inequality.

Every regression is not only a step backward for those immediately affected, but a warning sign for humanity as a whole. Rights once won are not guaranteed; they require vigilance and defence. To roll back recognition of love is to betray the very principle of universality that underpins human rights.

Human progress has always been measured in the widening of freedom and to continue that, courage is required to say that no private faith may dictate public law, that no majority may trample the humanity of a minority, and that love, freely chosen, can never be outlawed.

The true test of justice is not how it treats the powerful, but how it safeguards the bonds of care, intimacy, and belonging that make us human. To defend love, then, is to defend humanity itself.

Bibliography

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.
California Penal Code § 261.6. (n.d.). Definition of consent in relation to sexual assault.
Euronews. (2025). Italy extends surrogacy ban abroad. Euronews.
Frankl, V. (1946). Man’s Search for Meaning. Beacon Press.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Harvard University Press.
Haney, C. (2003). The psychological impact of incarceration: Implications for post-prison adjustment. In Prisoners Once Removed. Urban Institute Press.
Human Dignity Trust. (2025). Map of Countries that Criminalise LGBT People. humandignitytrust.org.
Human Rights Watch. (2021). Poland: Near-total abortion ban harms women. hrw.org.
Human Rights Watch. (2022). We are being punished for daring to exist: Blasphemy laws in South Asia. hrw.org.
ILGA-Europe. (2021). Hungary’s anti-LGBTQI+ constitutional changes. ilga-europe.org.
Kamen, H. (1997). The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision. Yale University Press.
Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. (M. Gregor, Trans., 1998 ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
Mill, J. S. (1859). On Liberty. London: John W. Parker and Son.
Rutter, M., et al. (1998). Developmental catch-up, and deficit, following adoption after severe global early privation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39(4), 465–476.
UK Government. (2003). Sexual Offences Act 2003. legislation.gov.uk.
Waldinger, R., & Schulz, M. (2010). The Harvard Study of Adult Development. Harvard University.

Disclaimer

This essay draws on publicly available sources and academic research. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, laws and policies may change. The arguments presented are interpretive and ethical in nature, intended to foster discussion on human rights, consent, and justice.