Let's take your "we don't live in the natural world as the way animals do" statement.
Consider natural selection. It doesn't have a 'purpose' the way us humans understand, it just is, but it's effect on biological organisms is making them adapt to the changes in environment by killing a percentage of members who are not genetically viable to survive. This is not necessary a good thing, many 'good' and 'smart' people die because they couldn't bother to learn to lie, deceive, manipulate or force through violence the forces that killed them (whenever that be natural disasters, hunger, predators or sociopaths). The unintended (because laws of life have no agenda) side effect was evolving bigger brains in humans, enough to allow them to understand and use technology and, most importantly, to improve themselves and maybe someday escape this hell on earth leftist morons call "Mother Nature, who cares about you" - yeah, right, tell that to someone with multiple sclerosis or parasites.
Where's natural selection where humans, as a species, have no natural predators anymore and don't have to bother with hunger and disease? It's women, plain and simple. Other natural selection ersatz is our tendency to outsmart ourselves and beat the other ape to resources, but that tends to breed psychopathy (Ayn Ryan much?) and I assume you're like me and you don't want that to flourish.
In order for women (it can also be men, but that creates a horde of problems that hinder more than they help in the long run) to work as a natural selection mechanism you need an environment where men 'prove' their genes of being adaptable enough. This implies there has to be a bunch of men who will not breed at all (because you can't have quality control otherwise), also there has to be an society that creates incentives for men to test their genome: where the biggest lust of a man - woman - needs effort to attain. A society you wish to come true, where every guy has a sex toy and children will stagnate first, die off second when times change while genome does not. There are other ways (better for my taste) to adapt your species' genetics to change (and the biggest change now is technology, which advances much faster than blind-idiot-luck reproduction will ever be able to and will doom humanity someday if someone doesn't take action) but they need some kind of overseer to decide what genes are worth propagating and unless it's some kind of autistic AI with no human desires (and humans making this AI will surely fuck that up) and some kind of artificial incubators which will make biological wombs (and myriads of problems like mother's hip width/newborn's head circumference ratio, pregnancy being a drain on body/worktime etc.) obsolete it will fail - and 'test-tube babies' is such an ingrained negative trope in society that you'll have everyone opposing this idea even if it could salvage civilisation (just imagine explaining the idea to the Vatican and trying to convince those boneheads).
"A (nation)state is supposed to provide the abilities necessary for every member to survive and create offspring." - a nation-state is fundamentally a tribe chieftain in macro scale. It isn't supposed to provide for anything - it consists of people who strong-armed their way to power. In order to not spark rebellions, state has to make people content at least and that's its only job. In practice, nations make sure their subjects don't feel fear (violent crime, injustice, foreign invasion, starvation, medicine) so they go out and work and are eligible for taxation.
"Modern (democratic/capitalist) states use men as work horses to provide the means for women to buy useless shit." - I understand your frustration and also see this as a problem, but friggin' men created such environment. Men always berated each other for not being 'good enough' and loved to spoil women with trinkets or spoils of war so they would put out without rape (either they had empathy for rape victims or their sex partners had fathers/brothers who would enact clan vengeance for rape). We live in a time where administrative work (which women are good enough to do) and social work (which women are better than men at) is the most important and profitable. If you have any idea how to change that for the better, I'm interested (no sarcasm).
"Modern (democratic/capitalist) states use men as work horses to provide the means for women to buy useless shit." - and it will fail. Not the first time, not the last. Men were always expendable, compare societies with warrior women to societies which used women mainly for babies - the egalitarian ones died out fast due to lower soldier/worker replacement rate. There's no need to stress about our society because it won't stand the test of time anyway and something with more sense will replace it.
"You said that EVERY organism has to fight for the right to breed - women don't have to fight for it, men fight for them." - don't know much about women, don't you? You have no idea how rotten women can be when fighting among themselves for hunks. After this 'free love' hippie shit which degenerated into 10% of men fucking 90% of women with little backlash, women are now going lesbian and tearing each other's heads off over best girl picks. Hilarious, I know. My point is, for evolutionary selection to work there has to be a 'strong sex' struggling to make life livable and fighting for attention of the 'weak sex' which has the priviledge to cherrypick, there's no changing that no matter how sad you are, I'm sorry.
tl;dr: NO ONE IS FUCKING ENTITLED TO BEING LOVED, PERIOD.