The normal result of a straight couple getting married is to have kids.
The normal result of gay couple getting married will never have children, unless they go to a straight union and adopt.
So straight couples create children, gay couple never create children without going outside their union.
The laws are for the most normal result of marriage, the one that actually results in natural furtherance of the species.
Using extreme examples to justify your position, while ignoring the overwhelming results throughout history shows the vacuum of common sense in your argument.
Unless you can show that the natural way to 'generate children' has changed, then you really shouldn't argue that things 'are now very different'. What does that even mean? Men and women are no longer each required to have a child?
You're making an emotional argument that is based on platitudes and propaganda, not reality.
For example you point out that gay couples have more money because they have 'fewer children' which is silly. Gay couples generate no children, and adoption laws are very strict against it in most states, therefore the overwhelming majority of gay couples have no children. But you don't want to look at that, you want to point to Rosie O'Donnell and pretend she's the norm.
And once you use Rosie O'Donnell for your benchmark, you lose.
Are there federal laws against gay or single parents having kids? No (I don't think, anyway).
What groups of people are more similar in regards to their use of laws for combining their financial/legal lives and providing for any family member that survives them?
- On one hand, we have Jane and Joe Jones. They are straight and have kids. We also have Joe and Jim Smith, a married gay couple with two adopted children.
- Alternately, we continue to have Joe and Jim Smith on one hand, and compare them with Jennifer Williams, a single person with no spouse or children.
If you said #2, you are making an anti-logic argument, are afraid of change and/or failed the SATs.