Your trying to add too much to the scope of my post. What I said was:
"Then again, neither can possibly produce kids, and would not be considered a married couple and family - Which is why marriage exists, and why the state has a vested interest in preserving and nurturing the next generation of good citizens."
The key word here is produce. When you adopt, yout take custody of the result of sexual contact between a male sperm and female egg. In a homosexual relationship, you must go outside the relationship to come up with both of these items.
I guess I see women as the "producers", since getting a sperm donor takes only a matter of a bit of money, sometimes it can happen for free. And, yes, one can go outside the relationship to get the needed gamete, but the children are raised within the relationship that the parent(s) provide.
In times when test-tube babies, surrogate mothers, and artificial insemination were not possible, and sperm donation through actual intercourse was the only (deeply frowned on) way, family law was set up. Today, with effective means of conception control, and the forms of offspring creation outside of traditional marriage being considered legal, marriage and family can indeed be considered separate and distinct in the lives of at least some people.
Does this destroy "the family"? The vast majority of our fellow citizens are going to reproduce the old fashioned way, by finding a partner of the opposite sex, marrying and mating (I suppose not necessarily always in that order), and about half of them staying together at least through the period of time necessary to raise the children to their own reproductive age.
I guess being an adopted child gives me a perspective on "family" that might be different from others here.