Baron Max, You the people also refuse to take care of them.
No, "we, the people" do, in fact, try to care for the kids. It's a daunting task because so many people consider kids as throw-away objects! And note that for that very reason, we should be careful who we allow to adopt the abandoned kids ...are they another couple/person who considers the kids throw-away objects? And how are we to know?
We, the people, do background checks in order to try to weed out the bad guys from the good guys ...which is no easy task! Drug addicts, prostitutes, pedophiles and other such examples are labeled as "risky" for adoption. Another one that's labeled "risky" is overly devote religious freaks. And, yes, another one is "gay". Why should we take the chance? Just to get rid of the kid? Just to take him off the roles of public care? Just ...throw him away towards someone else and wash our hands of him? No, I don't think so.
Pedophiles can't be trusted to be fair with kids.
Many, if not most, pedophiles have warm, loving families with children who are happy, cared for, loved and the pedophile would never, ever, harm or even be sexually attracted to his own child. So you see, pedophiles might actually make damned good foster parents or adoption parents.
Nothing in the definition of gay declares them less capable of taking care of kids.
But there's usually no "track record" of performance as a family, as parents. In exactly the same way as single people aren't good choices for adopting children ...they have no solid track record. Should we just use the kids as gambling chips ...just throw the kid to anyone who wants him, and take the gamble that everything will be fine?
No, gays, single people, prostitutes, and such are NOT good choices as adoption parents. Pedophiles are actually better choices!!
Baron Max