What's the Beef With Milo?
We made an argument yesterday that once biblical teaching about marriage and family is rejected--as the West has done--all that is left is "everything goes". We recognize that in making the "anything goes" claim we have jumped over a few valleys here and there. While the logic of the argument is sound, the sociology of the argument is a bit more complicated.
Since we do not currently live in a society which tolerates "anything goes", there are a number of sociological or political realities which determine right and wrong, lawfulness and illegality. But our argument remains valid: if the Bible's definition of marriage and family is rejected, any other definition of marriage will turn upon the particular prevailing "flavour of the month".
With the acceptance of homosexual "marriage" and the rejection of the Bible's authority on the matter who gets married to whom, and on what terms and conditions, becomes a matter of the prevailing political winds at the time.
The direction of those winds change, election by election. This, dear friends, is apparently the audacity of the secularist's hope.
The fashion of the most influential Western intellectual circles has long dictated that mankind is composed of discrete individuals whose relations are purely consensual and that when these relationship involve housing and sex, they are called families. Note, however, that where each individual is independent of every other, all individuals must rely on the state alone.A brouhaha has broken out amongst the alt-Right folks--or at least those following in the wake of Camp Breitbart. A senior figure in that organisation is (was?) Milo Yiannopoulos who glories in his homosexuality. He (apparently) has endorsed homosexual pederasty. He has been roundly condemned as a result. But--and we must be clear upon this--on secular terms, there is not a shred, nor shard of a principle to warrant the condemnation. There is only the warrant that arises out of pedophiliac sex being illegal at the present time.
To the extent that individuals' relations with their cohabitants--their "families"--are contingent, each individual's relations with the state must be noncontingent. Since within contingent relationships there are always disputes about who is to do what, the state from time to time delegates authority to some over others and calls it family policy. This line of reasoning is based on the twin pillars of modern social thought: autonomous individuals and omnicompetent governments. [Angelo Codevilla, The Character of Nations: How Politics Makes and Breaks Prosperity, Family, and Civility (New York: Basic Books, 1995), p.156.]
But since there are only autonomous individuals pleasing themselves and omni-competent governments ruling over them, all is ultimately fluid, variable and changing. The flavour of the month unsurprisingly changes by the month.
Any Unbeliever who thinks that something in the secular world is absolutely wrong, and therefore must be proscribed for all time, is a self-deceived fool ten times over.