Pedophilia is a thing of the past.

Your main answer is
1. That the state is not supposed to prevent religious crime.
I agree.
2. Adoption of children (surrogacy is only the practice of bringing the child into the world, the main discussion is about adopting children) by a male couple is like the question regarding adoption of children by a couple who desecrate the Sabbath.
I really disagree. Desecrating Shabbat or keeping Shabbat has nothing to do with the definition of the concept of family, which is a concept with legal, religious, social meanings, etc. Adopting a child, whether or not it is part of the core of the concept of family, so recognizing the adoption of a male couple is recognizing a new family with all its legal, social, and religious meanings.
I understand that social moral crime, and of course you also agree that the state is supposed to prevent it.
In your opinion, is an ethical and aesthetic crime a religious or social crime, or is it that, to the extent that homosexuality is accepted today, there is no ethical and aesthetic crime here?
There is a debate about the harm to children adopted by a male couple, each bringing the research that supports their position,
I have a feeling that the authors of the studies themselves also have agendas, so all research in the field is subject to limited liability.
I fear that from the day pedophilia becomes acceptable, it will be difficult to prove that there is harm to children. They will find ways to show that children actually develop from it… (There were things from the beginning, according to ancient Greece)
So how can you cancel kiddush by canceling a pedophile witness? You can’t cancel kiddush by canceling a gay witness today. Maybe you can cancel kiddush of witnesses who are married to a woman and have children, not through a RL inn.