I am not so sure this is the way to look at love. I am hesitant to look at love as a thing someone does to you or for you
Perhaps you are hesitant, but it doesn't follow that looking at 'love' in this way is mistaken. I'm not talking about reciprocity of action here (the view that we do something for someone and they, in turn, do things for us). This is one of the reasons why I prefer to talk about 'caring' rather than love (the latter being something whose existence we assume based on the mere fact of the word). We can care about someone, through our actions, in such a way as to facilitate their comfort, their happiness, their ease or their knowledge; this does not have to be carried out as if it is a favour to be returned.
When someone attempts to measure care they usually end up in difficult situations. They ask questions such as: "why should I help you when you never help me?" Such a person has an idea of care that is rooted in a dynamic of exchange (so there is a profit motive at work), care viewed through the lens of business. Even those who profess to have a love for a deity demonstrate this through their activity. We cannot claim to 'love' someone, to 'care' about them, if we do nothing other than merely say the words (although, admittedly, it might be enough to say those words from time to time as simply hearing them might be beneficial).
Put simply, I am talking about 'care'. We use the word 'love' but I want to avoid it as we all have our own desires regarding what we would like the word to mean (I use it in my life but I still prefer 'care' - I would much rather hear my girlfriend or my parents tell me that they care about me than that they love me, although I am probably not in the majority as far as this preference is concerned).
So, what is care if it is not done to or for us? It remains entirely abstract, spoken of as if it were an actual 'thing' yet prevented from having any earthly form.
it is about family...there is a bond...a unit...that is unbreakable.
This is all very well and good, but we know that this 'bond' is both fragile and - in many instances - entirely fictional. The group that cares about itself cares about each and every one of its members and it does this in activity, not abstraction. Families, societies, populations; none are exempt from the demand that care be actively shown or assumed to be non-existent. We should also recognise that the particular group that has come to be termed 'the family' is not a universal, ahistorical unit. By stressing its importance we create, maintain and reinforce great suffering on the part of those who - for whatever reasons - do not fit into the ideal.
I do know there is such a thing as people who love God unconditionally.
How do you know this? Because they have told you so? Do you see it in their actions? They may have reverence for an idea (in this case, an idea shared by many) but is this tantamount to 'love'?
Isn't the idea of love enough?
My idea of love involves caring (which, again, is why I prefer to talk about care rather than love); this caring is demonstrated through activity. For me, for now, this idea is enough. However, if by 'the idea of love' you mean just 'believing in love' (or words to that effect) then no, this is not nearly enough.