This thread has quite an interesting topic and also some serious contributors, although frequently quite vehement in nature. Unfortunately that last quality does not seem to do the quality of this thread much good. I'd like to pose my view on love, and how I think about human relationships and the value of them.

Most humans like to spend time with other humans. Depending on personalities, the intensity of enjoying each others presence varies and could easily be negative. Prolongued contact develops trust or at least understanding of the other's way of thinking and people may learn more about their own character and follies as they spend time together.
I believe that love is simply a strong mutual understanding of each other, which is valued greater than the costs of having to live with the things you dislike or even hate in your partner.

Note that such a definition leaves open homosexual relationships and polygamy. Of those I have no noteable opinion yet.

Most importantly though, under this definition, love is not dead, nor corrupt. Corruption entails only when love is replaced by lust. However, those two are closely linked and the one may easily result from the other.

In other words, there is much to be gained from friendship and love, which is strength, for true friends and true lovers will identify and remove or reduce weaknesses in each other. To some members of this thread this may sound preposterous, but I would like to pose now that from this perspective, love stands at least as tall as logic when it comes to develop strength. This must be true because logic is inherent to love (understanding each other). But love (in the current definition which includes mutuality) involves two spectators per person, whereas a man trusting on logic in solitude is the only spectator to himself.

It must be clear that the difference in involved spectators will influence the accuracy of analysis, so a loving couple has the edge over the solitary man when it comes to improving themselves.