Can Homesexual "Marriages" have Eros Love?

[Inquiringperson]

The question is in the title. If you are not sure what Eros Love is, the papal encyclical Deus Caritas Est will explain what Eros Love is.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/be...as-est_en.html

[Corki]

Originally Posted by Inquiringperson

The question is in the title. If you are not sure what Eros Love is, the papal encyclical Deus Caritas Est will explain what Eros Love is.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/be...as-est_en.html

No, as noted in the link, eros is based on the love between a man and a woman.

That love between man and woman which is neither planned nor willed, but somehow imposes itself upon human beings, was called eros by the ancient Greeks.

By definitition, a homosexual coupling cannot experience eros love.

[mitex]

Personally I believe any couple can love each other... Gay or straight...

[Dakota Roberts]

Originally Posted by Inquiringperson

The question is in the title. If you are not sure what Eros Love is, the papal encyclical Deus Caritas Est will explain what Eros Love is.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/be...as-est_en.html

As always one must define his terms. Eros represents desire, in this sense Man's love can be described as erotic. Eros can either mean sexual or non-sexual desire. I think we can all agree that most homosexual "marriages" will have a sexual desire component. I think we can also agree that they are capable of desiring the other in a nonsexual way.

[iloveangels]

Originally Posted by Dakota Roberts

As always one must define his terms. Eros represents desire, in this sense Man's love can be described as erotic. Eros can either mean sexual or non-sexual desire. I think we can all agree that most homosexual "marriages" will have a sexual desire component. I think we can also agree that they are capable of desiring the other in a nonsexual way.

Why does it matter? Who cares? This is immoral.

[Dakota Roberts]

Originally Posted by iloveangels

Why does it matter? Who cares? This is immoral.

That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about "Can Homesexual 'Marriages' have Eros Love? "
(this of course assumes that homesexual=homosexual)

[iloveangels]

Originally Posted by Dakota Roberts

That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about "Can Homesexual 'Marriages' have Eros Love? "
(this of course assumes that homesexual=homosexual)

It's about as pertinent a question as "Can a man fall in love with a dining room chair and live happily ever after?" Who cares? It's a nonsense question. And when someone claims that it happens, it's not moral anyway.

CLUE #1: The PARTS don't fit.

[Inquiringperson]

Originally Posted by iloveangels

It's about as pertinent a question as "Can a man fall in love with a dining room chair and live happily ever after?" Who cares? It's a nonsense question. And when someone claims that it happens, it's not moral anyway.

CLUE #1: The PARTS don't fit.

That's not the question. The question is if homosexual couples can experience Eros love. Under that question, then I can also say can a man have Eros Love with a chair. If Corki is right, then it would be impossible for Eros Love to exist with both of these situations. I am not questioning the morality of Homosexual "marriages".

Edit: Oh yes, thanks Corki.

[Deus_lo_vult]

Originally Posted by iloveangels

It's about as pertinent a question as "Can a man fall in love with a dining room chair and live happily ever after?" Who cares? It's a nonsense question. And when someone claims that it happens, it's not moral anyway.

CLUE #1: The PARTS don't fit.

Allow me to humbly submit that while I don't entirely disagree with your analogy, it's nonetheless a pretty crude one. I don't think homosexuals will be much ameliorated by arguments that allude to the misuse of inanimate objects.

If you want to explain to a person why acting on an intensely passionate longing is morally illicit, it goes a long way to explain why that is so, not merely that "it is wrong, period."

This is why the Catechism of the Catholic Church was written. If you just want to say "Don't do that, it's wrong." you wouldn't need 750+ pages.

For example, cafeteria Catholics tend not to follow Church teaching often out of ignorance of the theological underpinnings of such teachings. Take the prohibition of contraceptives. It seems pefectly harmless to those not versed in Catholic theology. When you explain the theology, minds are changed.

[John21652]

Originally Posted by iloveangels

It's about as pertinent a question as "Can a man fall in love with a dining room chair and live happily ever after?" Who cares? It's a nonsense question. And when someone claims that it happens, it's not moral anyway.

CLUE #1: The PARTS don't fit.

There are some folks who go for animals. They 'desire' the animals. Sometimes, if they go about it the 'right' way, the parts will even fit (I think) Erotc? Or Sick?

It is, without doubt, a misplaced use of the word eros and its derivative, erotic. Homosexuals represent at the most 3% of the population and so, when used in literature and in encyclicals, the word eros and erotica have never been attributed to them. It will no doubt be yet another attempt at normalising homosexuality by attributing to it words, phrases and entire essays that have been the traditional preserve of heterosexual love, romance and marriage. They started with hijacking the word "gay" to cover their illicit, unnatural and disordered lifestyle; they now want to take control of the word "marriage" and to justify their desires, they will now attempt to show us all how the use of the word eros, as used in an encyclical, can be referred to them.

It's all rubbish and nonsense. It staggers me they haven't attempted to take control of Shakespear's sonnets, poems and plays, but the thing is, Shakespeare doesn't represent any sort of moral authority, so they leave him alone. From the time of the ancient Greeks, eros has been one of the life preserving instincts of mankind. That's why it has attracted so much attention down through the ages. If anyone now attempts to describe homosexuality in terms of eros, then it's one more step away from the high philosophical and intelllectual regard for those life preserving instincts that mankind has mulled over. Homosexuality does nothing for and has no connection with, any life preserving faculties of the human race.

[thistle]

Originally Posted by Inquiringperson

The question is in the title. If you are not sure what Eros Love is, the papal encyclical Deus Caritas Est will explain what Eros Love is.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/be...as-est_en.html

The answer is no. Homosexual love is a disordered love.

Secondly, there is no such thing as a homosexual marriage, no matter what some civil authorities say.

[Inquiringperson]

Originally Posted by thistle

The answer is no. Homosexual love is a disordered love.

Secondly, there is no such thing as a homosexual marriage, no matter what some civil authorities say.

Hence the quotes.

[Dakota Roberts]

Originally Posted by Inquiringperson

That's not the question. The question is if homosexual couples can experience Eros love. Under that question, then I can also say can a man have Eros Love with a chair. If Corki is right, then it would be impossible for Eros Love to exist with both of these situations. I am not questioning the morality of Homosexual "marriages".

Edit: Oh yes, thanks Corki.

Ah, but a chair can not reciprocate (sp?).

Originally Posted by John21652

There are some folks who go for animals. They 'desire' the animals. Sometimes, if they go about it the 'right' way, the parts will even fit (I think) Erotc? Or Sick?

It is, without doubt, a misplaced use of the word eros and its derivative, erotic. Homosexuals represent at the most 3% of the population and so, when used in literature and in encyclicals, the word eros and erotica have never been attributed to them. It will no doubt be yet another attempt at normalising homosexuality by attributing to it words, phrases and entire essays that have been the traditional preserve of heterosexual love, romance and marriage. They started with hijacking the word "gay" to cover their illicit, unnatural and disordered lifestyle; they now want to take control of the word "marriage" and to justify their desires, they will now attempt to show us all how the use of the word eros, as used in an encyclical, can be referred to them.

It's all rubbish and nonsense. It staggers me they haven't attempted to take control of Shakespear's sonnets, poems and plays, but the thing is, Shakespeare doesn't represent any sort of moral authority, so they leave him alone. From the time of the ancient Greeks, eros has been one of the life preserving instincts of mankind. That's why it has attracted so much attention down through the ages. If anyone now attempts to describe homosexuality in terms of eros, then it's one more step away from the high philosophical and intelllectual regard for those life preserving instincts that mankind has mulled over. Homosexuality does nothing for and has no connection with, any life preserving faculties of the human race.

That's not eros, that sounds more like lust

I died laughing reading that; evidently you weren't well schooled in the Classics.

Actually the word gay was used in a negative sense, the word has pretty much always had a negative under the table meaning (previously it referred to promiscuous women).

I find it hilarious you start with the Greeks siknce they wouldn't classify man and woman love as eros, they would consider it consider it sexual greed.

[John21652]

Originally Posted by Dakota Roberts

That's not eros, that sounds more like lust

Considering the legendary promiscuity rates amongst homosexuals, lust is probably the better adjective.

I died laughing reading that; evidently you weren't well schooled in the Classics.

Better than you, obviously.

Actually the word gay was used in a negative sense, the word has pretty much always had a negative under the table meaning (previously it referred to promiscuous women).

The hijacking of the word 'gay' by homosexuals has been well documented across this board. Today we have 'gay pride' and 'gay lifestyle', instead of the 'gay bachelor' of some generations ago. The gay lobby knows no boundaries of shame in how they attempt at hijacking seemingly innocuous adjectives to normalise their lifestyle.

I find it hilarious you start with the Greeks siknce they wouldn't classify man and woman love as eros, they would consider it consider it sexual greed.

Excuse me, but do some research on the Greek notion of eros as one of the life preserving instincts of mankind. Have you not heard the tale of Eros and Psyche? Eros was also the Greek god of fertility. Another reason the homosexual apologists can't claim eros, erotic, or even eroticism as part of their formed identity. After you're up to speed on classical mythology, try some of the English epic poets, Milton among them, who also linked erotic romance to its procreative consequences.

[Dakota Roberts]

Originally Posted by John21652

Considering the legendary promiscuity rates amongst homosexuals, lust is probably the better adjective.

Better than you, obviously.

The hijacking of the word 'gay' by homosexuals has been well documented across this board. Today we have 'gay pride' and 'gay lifestyle', instead of the 'gay bachelor' of some generations ago. The gay lobby knows no boundaries of shame in how they attempt at hijacking seemingly innocuous adjectives to normalise their lifestyle.
Excuse me, but do some research on the Greek notion of eros as one of the life preserving instincts of mankind. Have you not heard the tale of Eros and Psyche? Eros was also the Greek god of fertility. Another reason the homosexual apologists can't claim eros, erotic, or even eroticism as part of their formed identity. After you're up to speed on classical mythology, try some of the English epic poets, Milton among them, who also linked erotic romance to its procreative consequences.

The word gay was an epithet applied to homosexuals by heterosexuals, to claim they are hijacking and stealing the term is absurd.

I was referring to literature and philosophy not mythology...

Aphrodite Urania represents the more perfect love as she springs purely from the male and thus is free from licentiousness. The love is runs deep and is a connection of the soul in a way, unlike the much baser Aphrodite Pandemos.


I sincerely apologize for the poor spelling in my other post, phones aren't the best typing platform