Yet your logic would be that "the moment you try to judge what 'real' families are, you have stopped being reasonable." I do no think I am being unreasonable to say that Ozzie and Harriet does not portray a real family. Yes it was very popular, and that show is still used as short-hand expressing a longing for an idyllic bygone American life, but the situations and reactions were only valid for a very small percentage of the US. It took another 15 years, with shows like All in the Family, for more realistic themes like miscarriage, impotence, and racism to be included as part of the issues that families might deal with. Roseanne would also fit into that category, as Barr included a lesbian main character because Barr sought "to portray various slices of real life, and homosexuals are a reality."
Why can't I also say that most pornography does as good a job of portraying real sex as Leave It To Beaver does at portraying a real family with husband, wife, and two sons?
Our disagreement could be a simple as a difference in what 'real' means. I use it as "more likely to be characteristic of the general culture practice." You seem to interpret it as "whatever can happen in the physical world."
In which case, sure, I Love Lucy could be a perfectly accurate portrayal of a real family - unlikely, but it could. And it misses the point. That being: “The issue I’m tackling is not porn,” she said. “It’s the complete lack of open, healthy dialogue around porn and sex.”