In Katy Faust’s column “A Gay Parent’s Complaint About Adoption Illustrates A Dangerous Adult-Centric Mindset” at The Federalist, she writes of a Lesbian who wanted her Supreme-Court-defined spouse to get to be the parent of record for her artificially-conceived son without any legal fuss:
Throughout her narrative Leigel presents herself as the sole victim of her family arrangement. She focuses entirely on her own desires and discomfort — detailing the cruelty, the cruelty, of the “cold stethoscope” during a routine physical and how she once had to endure the metal detectors and “hard wooden benches” of a courtroom. Not one sentence in her article acknowledges the fact that she participated in intentionally depriving this boy of his father … for life.
When considering what cruelty looks like I’m going to go with father deprivation over cold stethoscopes, every single time.
The entire post is well worth reading, but one of the things that it reinforced for me is a strong belief that our society doesn’t believe in Darwinian evolution–at least, not any more.
The idea that a child has a good chance of being just as healthy and happy without a dual set of opposite-sex parents looks extremely unlikely if we developed as a species based on sexual reproduction. Yet our leaders in society accept the proposition without evidence. They simply discount their own belief about biology and assume that child-rearing and sex have no impact on one another. All those customs are “cultural.”
Well, if you traveled in a spaceship and discovered a planet where all higher life forms came from sexual reproduction, what kind of cultures would you expect to develop, grow, and thrive among any intelligent species you found there?
I wrote about this after the Supreme Court decision declaring that same-sex marriage is real and a human right for same-sex couples.
I used to describe our intellectual culture as thoroughly Darwinistic. That doesn’t really ring true in light of recent developments. It seems more like it has a superficial function. Darwinism is merely useful as a way of assuring people that Christianity is not true. Other than that, people don’t seem to take it very seriously. Claiming that biology is superfluous to gender or that people are just as healthy and happy if raised by two people of the same sex in some kind of romantic relationships doesn’t sound like something any serious Darwinist could say.
I now think of Darwinism the way I think of Islam in cultures that commonly practice homosexual child rape. I don’t think the Koran actually teaches or approves of such behavior. But the Koran does immunize ancient cultures to the influence of the Gospel. Since they are never transformed, the cultures remain in the grip of their older, pagan vices. Likewise, no one is trying to actually conform the shape of our society according to a philosophy of a human race that developed on the basis of the ability to pass on one’s genetic heritage. We’re simply at the mercy of sundry vices. Darwin guards the door but he’s not permitted any other influence.
And, I should have added, no one is taking any direction for what is psychologically beneficial to raising healthy children from the way “nature” has arranged for them to come into existence.
If Darwinism didn’t arise as the servant to Narcissism and Nihilism, he has been demoted to that secondary place in the contemporary Western pansexual theocracy.