Well, it's convenient to redefine love as it suits you, but I think it both minimizes what love is (reduces it to happy happy, joy joy) and fails to see the entire picture (the focus is all wrong).

The human brain is capable of some pretty astounding tricks in order to be at peace with itself; that's pretty much a working definition of 'delusion'.

So, here's the problem as I see it: let's say someone fucks up once and gives in to temptation without regard to their beloved's feelings. But they later feel guilty about it and never do it again. Have they now ceased to love the other person? Their feelings are identical to what they were before once the guilt subsides. Why is it no longer love then? I know Baldur is more flexible than this one-strike-you're-out policy.

But let's say they fuck up and do it again. And again they come back to the same feelings they had before the fuck up. Are those feelings now unworthy of being labeled love?

But maybe the third time's the one that puts them over the edge, huh? Eventually a pattern develops. But the person is unable to live with the hurt they've caused, so they simply fail to see it, or they rationalize it away to the point where it no longer looks like what it is. Has this person's feelings of love for the other person diminished? No. This person has failed to live up to being the proper lover, but their feelings for the other person haven't changed.

Likewise, there are people who do everything right, but the feelings aren't there. Can you really call that love?

What I'm getting at is, you can't really define love externally beyond just the chemical reactions going on in the body. Love is a deeply internalized emotion. In fact, I don't think you can even call it a single emotion; it's kind of an emotional cocktail. That's why you can get the most pissed off sometimes at the people you care about. You let your guard down with those people, but once the guard is down, it can also open you up to a lot of negative stuff.