We both know, from the article, that one of the gay men is the biological father, and the other has no biological connection to the child. But they are still the parents. Now we may both agree on the argument that gay men should not be allowed to adopt children, but that is another issue altogether.
Personally I believe the judge is wrong, on 2 counts. The biological father is the son of an American woman and a British father who had not lived in the U.S. for the previous 5 years, and in addition he had dual citizenship. The child had to be naturalized, in my opinion. But my opinion doesn't count. The State Dept. was following what Congress had set. The judge is illegally granting citizenship that he has no authority to grant.
While it is obvious, that two same sexed individuals are incapable of creating a new life, nothing in the article nor the headline itself makes the argument that both were the biological parents of this child. That is my point, and I didn't need an education on how children are created either. The article never attempted to infer that they were the sole creators of that child. It merely stated that the couple's child born in England is a U.S. citizen as riled by an activist judge. Since they are a couple and the child is lawfully recognized as their child, your argument is not even relevant. Again, because that was never even implied to be the case with this child by the article, nor the headline itself.
Long winded...