No it doesn't. If you are referring to the "research" that John Boswell or whatever his name was, its' been disputed by scholars as an invalid conclusion. So let's move on away from that tired claim.
I didn't mention, quote, or even think of Boswell, whose work I haven't read. So we can't move away from what I didn't bring up (although we can move on from the notion that I brought it up).
I can see how what I said may have been unclear, however. To re-say it:
Perhaps the non-use of the adelphopoiesis rite leaves people who are inclined to form close bonds with people of the same sex without any model to look to. And that leaves them thinking that the choice is marriage or nothing.
THEREFORE (maybe), the non-use of the adelphopoiesis rite has contributed to the push to open up the marriage rite to same-sex couples.
If two people truly love God and His Church, and come together for with a sincere desire to work out their salvation in love, then it will work out.
See, I can't say you're wrong here, but I have been told many times not to try to read hearts. So, to me, it sounds like this is something I can't agree with - because such marriages do fail (at least some), and then, if I agree with what you said, I'm locked into saying that they didn't have a sincere desire to work out their salvation.
Sex is not everything, hate to break it to you. If you let your marriage rise and fall on what you're capable or willing to do sexually, I can guarantee you that will cause a lot of trouble in a marriage. Even within an Orthodox marriage we are to be "chaste" in the full and true meaning of that word. We even pray in the wedding service that the marriage bed be "chaste".
I have never said - or implied - that sex is everything, so you don't need to be sorry to break the news that it isn't.
So what do you think a "chaste" marriage bed means?
And the vast majority of commentators here have not called for H E or anyone else to be defrocked or removed or anything like that. Asking what the protocols are according to the canons of the Church is not the same thing as calling for someone's removal. So, my suggestion to you would be to calm down about that and don't use that as a distraction to get our attention off and away from the real issue.
I could be wrong, but I'm sensing an attitude from you regarding this issue that is negative and is in a rebellious spirit against the Church.
Rusmeister said it in post 35 of this thread. No, he doesn't make up the vast majority of people on this thread, but then, I didn't say most people on the thread had said that. Saying that "defrocking is in order" is pretty much calling for someone's removal.
I don't feel particularly not calm, and I'm not the one who said defrocking was in order, I only mentioned it because I thought that was a matter for bishops as well - when I was advised that the use- or non-use of a given rite was a matter for bishops - not priests, deacons, or the laypeople.
I have noticed a fair bit of leeway on the Orthodox Internet about layfolk deciding for themselves what's a matter for bishops and what isn't...
Regarding my attitude, I am not sure whether attitudes (i.e. - motivations as discerned over the Internet) are appropriate for this thread. Do you think they are?
I'm afraid I don't see how this shows your solution to be perfect.