Matthew supports two-father families

That is as close to saying "The New Testament supports homosexuality as you are going to get.  The text does, in fact, support dual male parentage.

How?

We know from the David/Jonathan narrative that Saul feared David because he feared that Jonathan, out of love for David, would allow David to supplant him, and would assume control and ownership of the kingdom.  We know from the David/Jonathan narrative that after Jonathan's death, David disproved Saul's fears by inviting Jonathan's son to eat at his table David restored to him his patrimony.

This tells us that according to the David/Jonathan narrative, the text DOES understand that when two male parents have share progeny, it does NOT mean that one of the male parents has to disown the offspring.

In the Matthean narrative, we are told that Maria (whose name, in Hebrew, means "My bitterness is God"--one of the strongest pieces of foreshadowing a narrative ever provided), is contracted to Joseph.  We are told that before he assumed ownership of her, she was already pregnant.  We are told that Joseph is "just" and that he does not want to "publicly expose" her.

It is important that Joseph is "just" and that he does not want to "publicly expose" her, and that has nothing to do with protecting her privacy or not wanting to embarrass her.  He does not want to expose her to charges that she has attempted to steal the progeny of one man and pass it off as his.  In not wanting to expose HER, Joseph is also not wanting to expose HIMSELF to the charge of stealing another man's progeny, which would be the case if he assumed ownership of a woman who was impregnated by another man.

How is this?  We know from Mesekhet Kiddushin (2a), that there are three ways to acquire a woman:  through money, through a deed, or through sex.  Now we should know that we have to be cautious in using the Talmud as a historical source:  it is not history.  We do not know exactly when the text was compiled.  However, that being said, we can presume that some of what we find in it, as with this text, was based on acknowledged social practice.

Thus, we find that Joseph acquired Maria either through a deed or through money (we are not told which).  Before he could assert ownership of her, someone else acquired her through sex.  Since she was already pregnant, if Joseph asserted his right of ownership via contract (or money), he would be acquiring not just the woman, but the woman + another man's progeny.  He would be putting himself in the position of attempting to steal another man's progeny, and putting Maria in the position of committing theft of that progeny, and of committing fraud in attempting to pass that progeny off as Joseph's.

joseph, being a "just" man, could not do that.  He was ready to send her away (possibly to the man who acquired her through sex).

Then an angel from the Lord arrives, and tells Joseph that Maria is pregnant through the holy spirit.

Joseph now knows the male whose progeny Maria carries.  The angel tells Joseph that he should not be afraid of being accused of attempted theft of another man's progeny, or of being accused of attempted fraud for passing that progeny off as his own.

Joseph, on waking up, decides to do what the angel told him:  he asserts ownership of Maria.  She has the child.  He is named as the angel told Joseph to name him.

If we are assuming that God is male based on the yod (Y) prefix in the tetragrammaton (YHWH), then the angel tells Joseph that he will be the second male involved in parenting the child.  He is told that God will not disown the child, and God will not prevent him from claiming ownership of the child.

Thus the text tells us that dual male parentage is not only permitted by the text, it is endorsed by the text.