What a remarkably shitty way to think about it. You might want to see a shrink. I understand that being given up for adoption, or being adopted out via termination of parental rights can be an emotionally injurious experience and can leave a number of questions lingering and unanswered about why what happened happened, but mis-characterizing current US adoption law and practice as purposefully dispossessing birth parents and displacing kids solely for the good of people that want a family and can't, biologically, create one demonstrates that you are clearly unable to evaluate the practice fairly or with concern for anyone but yourself.
As someone that work in adoption, I primarily deal with adoptive couples that are, for one reason or another, unable to have their own biological children or are able to but want to give a home to a child that might not otherwise have a stable environment. This happens most often with a mother that wants to give a child up for adoption and a father that consents to the adoption either explicitly or implicitly (usually through abandoning the mother during pregnancy or after birth. The period of abandonment sufficient to give implied consent in my state is six months and, honestly, if you knock a girl up and abandon her for six months then you should have your right to object waived for you forcibly.) The cases we see are most often young, single women who have an unintended pregnancy, are not comfortable terminating that pregnancy (in my state it's typically because of religious brainwashing.) and who are unable to pay the medical bills associated with the pregnancy and birth, nor would they be able to pay for proper care, medical and otherwise, for the child after birth.
We do complete some DHR adoptions, which are different often in terms of the socioeconomic level of the adoptive parents, the typical sociioeconomic levle of the birth parent(s), and in that the child(ren) have been removed from the care of the natural parent(s) by the state whereupon the parental rights are terminated. Removing a child from the care of the natural parent and terminating their parental rights is no small matter, there are multiple levels of potential appeal, and the strong presumption that the best place for a child to be is with their natural family must be overcome. It takes quite a bit and, generally speaking, a terrible, unhealthy, and unstable environment in order to remove a child from a home. It's not a happy situation for anyone, but it is done for the best interests of the child.
If you're talking about the pre-ICWA removal of indian children to non-indian homes, sure, there's plenty of reason to be bitter and that is a different matter entirely (and one that spawned a federal act giving the tribe(s) first option on adopting a child of indian descent, but railing against a system that has formed many happy families is... limited in scope and you've provided no actual support for your position other than your generally negative feelings towards the practice and the implication that indentured servitude taints all adoptions today because of their roots.
Now, the issue pertaining to the article is that, in my state, there is a strong presumption, formed by case law, that being placed with homosexual parent is not in the best interest of the child (which is the standard used in child custody cases, so if you have a child from a marriage, then terminate that marriage and one of the former couple is homosexual, that person is NOT getting custody of the child.) and same sex couples are not recognized in my state. Our adoption statute requires that there be an adoptive married couple, who have been married at least one year. Since there is no state recognition of marriage for same sex couples here, they cannot adopt.
While states should have some rights, the right to discriminate should not be one of them and I look forward to the day that homosexuals are classified as a group that has been historically discriminated against sufficiently to invoke strict scrutiny of any laws treating them differently.