You cleared up what you'd meant, but I think you're missing the point. When some readers commented praising me for reminding everybody that such a phrase excludes gay people, I think they were acknowledging how they'd never considered that angle...how the phrase is heterosexist, but most observers wouldn't have initially picked up on that.

I'm objecting to the premise that there should be one set of rules for opposite-sex couples and an entirely separate set of rules for same-sex couples. Instead, couples should adjust their relationships to the participants' needs...not what society tells them their gender roles should be. That is the premise of my article, and it's why I find the phrase to be so damaging.