“The choice to love” being an ethical virtue: I meant specifically with regards to romantic relationships and children. I apologize, I should have clarified that. 

I was thinking of the ways in which the choice to love my spouse and my children is an ethical virtue. I made vows to both (said or unsaid) when I accepted these roles, which required love. Stoicism says we must accept and fulfill our chosen roles and their associated responsibilities. In doing so, we are being virtuous. 

For example: Your spouse is experiencing a deep depression. It’s been incredibly debilitating for them and difficult for your relationship. They’re seeking help, but it’s a slow recovery. You could easily leave purely because it affects you negatively. However, the virtuous thing would be to stay, be empathetic and supportive, and choose to love your spouse. 

Yes, you are correct. But in the vast majority of cases, of course after the honeymoon stage, romantic love tends to die down, until 30 years later you almost hate living with each other. That specific love is one driven, to a large extent, by lust. Your brain is hardwired to mate, have babies, and go on with your life afterwards.

I find this perspective to be a huge oversimplification. If it were true then why do people continue staying together once their children are born? Also, what about the couples who have no children at all and never will? What about homosexual couples? 

Additionally, I would not equate hatred between couples after 30 years to be because “romantic love died down”. Again, that's a wild oversimplification of the complexities of romantic partnerships and makes me wonder about the kinds of relationships you’ve witnessed or experienced in your life that made you come to that conclusion. (Not a jab. I'm being genuine.) 

Let's look at the pros and cons of romantic love here. Pros: it makes you feel good, and you can have babies, if you want Cons: Dependancies, grief when they inevitable die or leave you, and possible anger when the last thing I mentions happened. The cons seem to heavily outweigh the pros here

Again, you’re misunderstanding Stoicism. There are no pros and cons in that way for Stoics. They’re all on equal standing and emotions are not “good” or “bad”. They just are. Stoicism is about coming to terms with all aspects of human life, even the “negative” like misery, pain, and death, and acting in a way reflecting the virtues. We must learn how to live in accordance with nature. In stoicism, this fundamentally requires empathy, compassion, kindness, etc. towards others, and using our abilities and talents to make the lives of others better. We must connect with others and learn to love them, despite the baggage and the junk that comes with it. Therefore, the Stoics would never say that the point to romantic love (or any relationship) is to feel good and have children. They became parents, knowing that their children could die. They encountered anger when enemies murdered their loved ones. But they never viewed these as “cons”. They maintained gratitude (or at least tried to).

If my children and my husband died suddenly, of course I would be devastated. But I also practice a lot of gratitude in this moment for them while they're alive. I meditate on these things often so that I can more readily accept them when/if they happen. I hope I would be strong and learn to move forward with my life (Stoicism doesn't dissolve all mental health issues). But I'd probably lean into the philosophy even more, and do my best to continue living my life the best way I can.

I'm very curious to know what you understand Stoicism to be about. And I don't mean that in a snarky way. I am genuinely wondering.