Camille Paglia on Marriage
While quoting Camille Paglia in my dissertation, I chanced up on another comment I had flagged in her landmark, Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson:
Marriage is the social regulation and placement of sexual energies, which for [English poet Edmund] Spenser otherwise fall back into the anarchy of nature, rule by the will-to-power and survival of the fittest. Marriage is the sanctified link between nature and society. Sex in Spenser must always have a social goal.
Save perhaps for Jonathan Rauch, gay marriage advocates have yet to defend marriage in such terms. Perhaps, they might get a better response from the American people if they did.
14 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Reference to academia to underscore need for validation of intelligence. Check.
Poor link that adds nothing to the conversation or illicits any sort of excitement among the reader. Check.
Dig that provides nothing to contribute to movement for equality and underscores authors self-loathing of his own gayness. Check.
Nobody reading, commenting or caring. Check.
ANOTHER DAN BLATT CLASSIC!
You know children in Africa have no dedicated servers to display their incoherant rambling to the world.
Have you ever considered you could contribute a lot more to the world than writing irrelevant regurgitations of other people’s points that no one reads with your time and energy, Dan? Isn’t there a Big Brothers and Sisters program nearby that needs mentors spewing illiterate nonsense to 3rd graders or something? At least when 8 year olds stare at you blankly, you can feel smarter to actual people, you know.
Comment by Tim — February 16, 2010 @ 5:18 pm - February 16, 2010
Wow, Tim, you really do hate me, don’t you?
Please show me how I underscore my self-loathing of my own gayness, as you claim. Looks like you spent more time ranting against me than I do crafting this post.
Fascinating your obsession with me. You talked to a shrink about this. Surely, you need the intervention of Athena who, in the Eumenides, transformed the Furies such that their leader declared, “I can feel the hate/the fury slip away.”
Oh, and thank you for making my time yet again. That I could generate such a response indicates I’m getting somewhere, alas that you’re incompetent to address my point about the meaning of marriage.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — February 16, 2010 @ 5:24 pm - February 16, 2010
Is There a Place for Gay People in Conservatism and Conservative Politics?
Featuring Nick Herbert, MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Conservative Party, United Kingdom; Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Dish Blog, The Atlantic; and Maggie Gallagher, President, National Organization for Marriage.
http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=6987
Under the leadership of David Cameron, Britain’s Conservative Party has jettisoned much of its former opposition to gay rights. Cameron supported civil unions for gays and appointed a number of openly gay men to his shadow cabinet. Nick Herbert will explain the reasons for those changes and elaborate on the new Conservative social agenda. Will the United States follow the British example? Our distinguished panel will consider the future of gay people’s participation in mainstream society and conservative politics on both sides of the Atlantic.
Comment by rusty — February 16, 2010 @ 5:47 pm - February 16, 2010
rusty, much as I love Cato–and have donated to them in years past, I can’t take very seriously a panel that features world-famous gynecological expert Andrew “Doc” Sullivan. He has had nothing kind to say about conservatives for nigh on six years.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — February 16, 2010 @ 5:57 pm - February 16, 2010
Agreed – Sullivan is a wild-eyed conspiracy-nut Obama-endorsing leftist, at this point. Putting him on a panel of “conservatives” (or any panel) is offensive to intellectual integrity, and good taste.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 16, 2010 @ 6:03 pm - February 16, 2010
looking more to the Brit: Nick Herbert will explain the reasons for those changes and elaborate on the new Conservative social agenda.
Comment by rusty — February 16, 2010 @ 6:11 pm - February 16, 2010
But, it would be nice to have some Americans familiar with the changes on the right here in the good ol’ US of A, you know like someone from GOProud or GayPatriot. I mean, isn’t the GayPatriot gonna be in DC anyway this week?
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — February 16, 2010 @ 6:15 pm - February 16, 2010
The ELCA presents their reasons for acceptance of gay unions in much the same terms as Spenser, as does the Episcopal and UCC churches. Those of us gay Christians are familiar with other paradigms of gay sexuality than those you find in Pride parades.
Comment by Ashpenaz — February 16, 2010 @ 6:40 pm - February 16, 2010
Funny that Tim mentions African Children in his screed.
Given his “love” of 15 year olds having sex with adults though, we shouldn’t be surprised.
Comment by The_Livewire — February 16, 2010 @ 8:50 pm - February 16, 2010
#9: Yes, The_Livewire. We can always count on Tim to pop up for two things: (1) wildly histrionic condemnations of GayPatriot’s contributors and their ideas, which he mischaracterizes; and (2) unrivaled, passionate, unwavering defenses on behalf of pedophilia and those who act to conceal it.
Comment by Sean A — February 16, 2010 @ 9:33 pm - February 16, 2010
#1 Tim you betray your lack of intelligence by using a word that doesnt exist. Illicits isnt a word. Elicits actually is the word you should have used. The attempt at indignant articulation and contempt doesnt cut it here. It wouldnt cut it in person. Your points have been overused and are easily seen as flimsy rhetoric. You demonstrate an inability to dialogue and take the easy road of “being professionally indignant.”
Comment by killiteten - Native Intelligence — February 16, 2010 @ 10:08 pm - February 16, 2010
Thanks guys for defending me. It’s much appreciated! Very much!
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — February 16, 2010 @ 10:32 pm - February 16, 2010
Unhinged liberal douchebag hatred: Check
Projection of one’s own self-loathing onto others: Check
Mindless bullshit that would cause even 3rd graders to wonder “WTF?!?”: Check
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 17, 2010 @ 12:42 am - February 17, 2010
Rauch’s arguments aside, I think most Americans would belittle or ignore almost any book with the word Personae in the title. Furthermore the quoted passage is one I believe most Americans would not find persuasive.
In short form: I don’t see how this line of argument would be of any benefit.
Most likely the response would be “how can you sanctify that which is NOT natural!”
Comment by DRH — February 18, 2010 @ 12:06 am - February 18, 2010