Equating love to passion seems like Anton and his semantic definition of religion with toy trains. Sure it fits the criteria, but there is an "essence of" caveat in there, at least to most of society, that warps where everything lands.
While I would consider a rapists passion for raping a "love of raping", and possibly "love of violent dominance" or "love of control", most would scoff at the very idea of love qualifying as anything "evil".
There is a tendency of most to lump "godly" things with love along preconditioned lines.
I like to think love can be perfectly epitomized by the conclusion of THIS delightfully amoral movie.
Love only beats the demon after they kill Heroin Downey Jr, and ESCAPE to a quiet life... unless they get bored and reinvigorate their love of killing people once again.
Do you see an inherent duality with love and all mentioned contextually equivocal terms?
Or is it as amoral as a natural born killer?
Addendum:
*** My reasoning is: there is a concept of "greater good" (read as greater benefit) promoted within all civilized societies, which often times gets corrupted by morality, and leads to an artificial sense of nobility in some form of service to that greater good, however they define it.
You see it with enlisted personnel. They are seriously doing it for their lord and country to protect that white christian rhetoric, or saying stupid redneck shit like, "Yeehaw, we are going to send Hillary to GITMO".
That is the retardery that guarded Camp Pendleton on election night. Serving his ideals and stupid republican convictions. And it's not a fiscal conservatism thing either, fuck welfare, go states rights, but more that they are all such ignorant retards in lifted trucks with big flags hanging off the back.
Good ol' boys can throw down though...