SNL Skit Finally Admits What the Media Won’t Say About Gay Dads

For years, asking questions about gay adoption, surrogacy, or the commodification of children got you labeled a bigot. The script was simple: love is love, families come in all forms, stop being so judgmental.

But it appears the rhetoric has worn thin. Now, even SNL, a show that’s rarely been brave in recent years, is giving audiences permission to laugh at the madness.

“You went to a rave called Bulge Dungeon last night,” one friend says during the skit. “And now you have…a baby?”

The gay couple avoids every honest question with sarcasm, emotional manipulation, and nonsensical woke language.

“Wait, but, uh…how?” one friend asks. The gay men recoil: “I’m sorry, but gay people can’t have a baby?” The group presses gently: Where did the baby come from? Who’s the mother?

The responses spiral from defensive to downright deranged. “Between the two of us, I’m more emotional and I like shopping,” one says. “So, me, I think.” The other adds, “I have long hair, and he’s an alcoholic. So I guess it’s, like, two moms, I guess.”

What unfolds is a takedown of the entire “progressive parenting” myth, a commentary on how identity politics have been used to dodge basic questions about biology, motherhood, and what’s best for children. When asked directly how they ended up with the baby, the men respond, “What do you want us to say—that we stole her?” Then, with a beat: “Well, we like to think of it as she stole us.”

It’s comedy, yes. But it’s also something more. The laughter that follows is tinged with disbelief—like, wait, are we finally allowed to laugh at this? Has SNL, a show that has long parroted progressive orthodoxy, actually dared to poke fun at one of the LGBTQ movement’s most sacred talking points?

Apparently, yes. And the skit surfaces a real and long-overdue question: how did we get here?

The Manufactured Consensus on Gay Parenthood

For the past two decades, the idea that gay men should have children via adoption or surrogacy has been elevated from novelty to moral necessity. Hollywood championed it. Courts enforced it. Corporations sponsored it. Questioning the ethics or logistics of this new family structure was taboo, often equated with bigotry.

But behind the celebratory headlines and progressive narratives surrounding gay parenthood lies a pressing question: Is this truly in the best interest of the children?​

The answer is no for obvious and simple reasons. In the realm of surrogacy, the process often involves affluent individuals commissioning children by purchasing human eggs from young, fertile women, frequently selected based on specific racial or educational criteria, and hiring other women, often from less privileged backgrounds, to carry the pregnancy to term. These arrangements are frequently framed in the language of love and family, yet at their core, they represent a market transaction where human life is commodified. This practice raises ethical concerns about the exploitation of women's bodies and the rights of the children born through such means.​

Alternatively, adoption, while often seen as a benevolent act, presents its own set of challenges. Studies indicate that adopted children are more likely to experience psychological and behavioral issues compared to their non-adopted peers. These challenges can be made worse when children are placed in homes that don't address the fundamental need for both a mother and a father.

Mothers Can't Be Erased or Replaced

Every baby has a mother, biologically, spiritually, and emotionally. Even if a woman’s name is erased from the birth certificate, her body remembers. So does the child.

In the case of surrogacy, this truth is often scrubbed from the narrative entirely. The language of modern parenthood leans heavily on contractual euphemisms—“gestational carrier,” “egg donor,” “intentional parent.” But beneath the sanitized terms are women whose bodies sustained life and formed a bond science still struggles to fully explain. And then, without ceremony, they are expected to disappear.

We now have growing testimony from children born through these arrangements who speak candidly about their confusion, their grief, and their longing for the mothers they never knew. In one widely read essay, a daughter of two gay men conceived through surrogacy wrote: “I love my fathers. But I mourn the woman whose face I’ll never know.”

And she’s not alone. Children of anonymous donors and commercial surrogates frequently report struggles with identity, abandonment, and depression, often intensified by a culture that celebrates the transaction but silences their pain.

This erasure isn’t limited to surrogacy. Children adopted into same-sex households, particularly gay male couples, have also begun speaking up. Many describe childhoods marked by a profound absence of maternal tenderness, feminine influence, and a sense of belonging.

Yet our culture, obsessed with affirmation and inclusion, continues to ignore these stories. Instead, it insists that any family “made of love” is valid, never mind the lifelong identity crises, emotional scars, or commodification of human life that may follow. As long as the adult feels fulfilled, we’re told, the child should be grateful.

But children are not props for social progress. They are human beings with real needs. Among them, the right to know and be known by their mother. When we prioritize adult desires over that bond, we don’t just lose touch with nature. We lose sight of justice.

A Comedic Moment of Cultural Honesty

For decades, the power of identity politics has outpaced the logic of basic morality. To criticize the surrogacy industry, or even gently suggest that mothers are not optional, is to risk being called homophobic, transphobic, or “anti-choice.”

But the tide may be turning. SNL’s skit provided the opportunities to laugh at the absurdity of a system that demands we pretend a child can appear from thin air, that two men can be both parents and mother, and that asking questions is somehow hate speech. It held up a mirror to a cultural farce we’ve all been too afraid to name.

And wisely, it didn’t moralize. It simply asked a simple question—Where did the baby come from?—and let the audience sit in the discomfort of that silence.

This isn’t about whether gay men can love or care for children. But love alone does not erase the truth: children are not lifestyle accessories. They’re human beings with rights, starting with the right to their mother. If we can’t be honest about that, then what kind of culture are we building?

Maybe this sketch is the beginning of something. A little more bravery, a little more clarity, and, most importantly, a reminder that comedy can still speak the truth when others won't.

One line in the skit sums it up perfectly: “People think they can ask gay people anything.” And yet, in a world where gay men can commission babies, dismiss mothers, and then cry oppression when questioned…maybe asking “How did you get this baby?” is the only sane response.