You've touched a very important topic, I find, and I want to add what my definition of love is. I apologize for the length but couldn't make it shorter. I share many of your views though not all. I hope I can add something of value.

In my view, norms have arisen out of a.) biology and b.) necessity. The being together of man and woman was more than just a couple relationship, both were integrated into a larger group of people, the extended family for example and the resulting community with other families.

Norm is not a law and does not need to be treated as such. If everyone knows the norm, they can orientate themselves by it and know where they belong. The fact that one can also like and love other people despite a monogamous marriage is not contradictory to the norm of monogamy. Basically, therefore, your statement about who we can love is stating the obvious. But where the obvious becomes doctrine and those who preach tolerance, but want to make it law, bring about its opposite.

Without such norm, it would all be rather confusing.

But also I realized that when everything goes, nothing really goes. But where I am given norms that don't confuse me but are clear, I can decide if I want to follow them and since it is voluntary, I can also voluntarily agree to accept the norms. We tend to forget that we as adults can be more flexible but children grow into their social environment and need clarity about the roles - they get it through observing (not explicit but implicit norms).

Since norms are not laws set in stone that must not be violated under any circumstances, because of course they are always violated, it is a normal circumstance that rule followers show this to the rule breakers and let them know that they see and feel it. They give signals and they express their concerns about it. This is normal human behaviour within an orderly structure. The intention is to give people the opportunity to reconsider whether the norms are really as bad as they think. But where arbitrariness reigns and everything can be done without people honestly indicating it, confusion sets in.

Homosexuality is the exception to heterosexuality. Divorce is the exception to staying together. Polygamy the exception to monogamy. It cannot be the other way around. And because it cannot be the other way around, it remains the obvious. Those who have difficulties with this obviousness, have also the more difficult task of securing their place in this environment, that is also a fact.

There have always been certain norms that worked quite well for most people, but not for everyone. So they have changed over time. With efforts and struggles. If there had been no struggle, you would have had a scenario where everyone agreed all the time and such is an impossibility. "Everything is subjective" cannot work simply because it is basically empty of content.

"You do you" is something that is in contrast to social custom, so it has conflictual potency. If a conflict exists, it cannot be expected to be easily resolved without effort and negotiation. Whereas the "you do you" becomes meaningless in the context of being understood, since the "you" largely coincides with the "we" and one can dispense with gruelling argument and negotiation.

This is, so to speak, the automatism that eases a large part of human coexistence. We need this easy going in order to use our energy for our daily lives and not to dwell on and chafe at things that do not need reversal, but acceptance in both directions.

If I have a group of children and the children are playing their natural and spontaneous games and one child cannot play this natural game, I am not going to ask all the other children or tell them that from now on they have to follow this one child. It would be completely unclear what one is supposed to follow here?

In doing so, I would be questioning the naturalness of the game and would not only be doing the one child no favours, but would also be confusing the rest of the group. It is impossible to "explain" a new rule because it is not at all clear what it should be, because what would the alternative to natural and spontaneous play look like? Since it doesn't exist, I can only try to help one child through "implication" in his or her specialness in avoiding to make a big fuzz about it, I neither can order the child to play with the others, nor give the same order to the other children, to integrate the child.

What I do is, for the time being, to take extra care of this child, just naturally, until the child decides on its own that it was being taken care of enough. The other children will observe me doing so while still playing their games, and will build up trust towards me that if they themselves have a hard time that they can approach me. All the time I never said a word about rules and how "to behave". I kept my mouth shut. The norm is to leave children alone. The exception is to welcome special moments and needs.

In this way, children with uncommon behaviors can receive a feeling of normality, without making the experience to be fingerpointed at through immature adults who use their own insecurity to "protect a special child" openly and thereby often create victimhood in the first place. All what children like to experience is a child's world, as less interfered by adults as possible. The less adults interfere the better the children can develop their own solutions in a given situation. But if adults think to have to "teach" social behavior with direct word and action, they treat children as if they were blank sheets without self capacities and regulations. Now, I want to clarify that this is not anti-authority. I am the adult and give direction and orientation through self confidence and knowing that I am the boss, I need not behaving like one.

Just make the test: If you are in front of a team and you say: "To make it clear, I am the boss", this will immediately result into the question why you would emphasize it instead of lead by example and situation. Same happens with other upfront statements. If you say "I was bullied in my past and I want to give you all the information to set the course for me here and no one of you shall ever bully me", what will happen?
So, if you label yourself as "hetero" or "homo" or "poly" or "mono", it actually raises more questions, not less. Though you can decide to be all of it in a given situation, which is again, the obvious.

Such is love for me. It begins in childhood and ends in old age. I ought not to be married but it's important to see married couples (becoming eventually grandparents) and leading a stable life by example. Just naturally without having to struggle all their lives with identity problems.

Greetings to you.