Charles Moore says something unintentionally revealing in his discussion of gay marriage at the Telegraph. He imagines a future Mr Cameron campaigning for polygamy, his audience panning the idea, and asks:

Wouldn’t they have said that the consent of those involved was not the only issue at stake? Wouldn’t they have been right?

Well, no. They wouldn’t be right, but before we rehearse the Non-Aggression Principle all over again, what other issue is Mr Moore actually concerned about?

Gay marriage is not a simple issue of fairness for all. The obsession with defining an individual’s identity by his or her sexual desires, and putting the fulfilment of those desires above everything else, is only about 100 years old and will, I suspect, pass. The need for men and women to have children, bring them up and look after one another is much more important. So Mr Cameron should tread more carefully.

So, Mr Moore is today breaking the Non-Aggression Principle to deny some people the right to spend their own time looking after the people they prefer to look after, so that his preferred outcome – a numerically strong population – can be achieved on behalf of “civilisation”, which presumably involves gay folk looking after different, smaller, people than gay folk might otherwise have chosen to spend their time on. I doubt many people would raise a child simply because the law makes it awkward to do otherwise, but the principle is at stake: using the law to make anyone do anything other than what they would prefer to do is using the law to make a slave.

Give the man a whip, Mr Moore is a slave driver.