I get it; I'm a crazy cat lady.

This morning, I was listening to an audio class from torahmedia.com, and the speaker was talking about the human need for growth. Suddenly, and I'm not sure how it came up, he mentioned how people today treat pets like they are their children. His argument became that most relationships between pets and their owners today are gross distortions that we use to satisfy our holy, G-d-given need to care for a child. When we cuddle and coo at a dog or cat and call it "my baby," then, basically, we are not indulging the animal, who gets nothing from this, but ourselves; and people who have not fulfilled their greater need to have children are the ones who seem to invest most in these behaviors.
This was pretty disconcerting for me. One the one hand, I've always wondered why religious families don't seem to have pets often, and this did shed some light on why that might be. On the other hand, I am extremely guilty of being one of those fussy, fawning pet-owners. I'll admit that my relationship with my cats must be somewhat delusional. Really, you'd have to see it to understand or believe it. The gushing baby-talk, the spoiling, the constant petting and affection - well, it's a good thing that my cats AREN'T babies (and maybe that they're now 3,000 miles away at my parents' home while I'm in school). But I'm guilty of it all, and it is definitely a weird feeling to have that sort of a psychological understanding of why I'd do such "silly" things.
On the other hand, call me crazy, but I partly disagree with what the rabbi was saying. Sure, I might be indulging or finding a quick-fix for my desire for children by having pets, but it's not a totally one-sided relationship, like a little girl playing with a doll. Animals do respond; they do LIKE affection and attention.
The rabbi also talked about how disturbing it was for him to see consolation cards for one who has lost a pet, or "mourning kits" on how to deal with such a loss. I don't think that this is so bad. For me, losing a pet IS like losing a member of the family- but not a human member of the family. They feel close because they are able to reciprocate what I give them, which is not complex, but fulfills shallower needs such as the desire for recognition and affection. At the same time, the desire to take care of another person is admittedly not a shallow one. And when people say "my dog loves me no matter what, unlike any person I know," I wonder if they realize that although this is true and animals can be almost bafflingly loyal to their owners, this "love" or "loyalty" IS based on the fact that you give them food every day, not because they know you lost your job or said a stupid thing out loud and choose not to judge you for it. Only a person, then, can really love you unconditionally, because they are conscious of the totality of who you are.
So what do you guys think...pets or no pets? And where do we draw the line? More importantly, I won't ever live by myself with 500 cats whom I call "my family," right?