Can Homesexual "Marriages" have Eros Love?

[John21652]

I use the OED which is far more in-depth and comprehensive

Oh, is it now, Dakota. Let’s have a look and see, shall we?

Here’s a link to the OED: Oxford English Dictionary. Now click on that link and see what it says about ‘gay’. Here’s what it says about ‘gay’ -

gay

Pronunciation: /geɪ/
adjective (gayer, gayest)

1(of a person, especially a man) homosexual.
relating to or used by homosexuals: a gay bar

2 dated light-hearted and carefree: Nan had a gay disposition and a very pretty face

3 dated brightly coloured; showy: a gay profusion of purple and pink sweet peas

4 informal not impressive, stylish, or attractive: he thinks the obsession with celebrity is totally gay

noun

a homosexual, especially a man.

Derivatives

gayness
noun

Origin:

Middle English (in gay (sense 2 of the adjective)): from Old French gai, of unknown origin

Gay meaning ‘homosexual’ became established in the 1960s as the term preferred by homosexual men to describe themselves. It is now the standard accepted term throughout the English-speaking world. As a result, the centuries-old other senses of gay meaning either ‘carefree’ or ‘bright and showy’ have more or less dropped out of natural use. The word gay cannot be readily used today in these older senses without arousing a sense of double entendre, despite concerted attempts by some to keep them alive.Gay in its modern sense typically refers to men (lesbian being the standard term for homosexual women) but in some contexts it can be used of both men and women.

Your reference to the OED because you think it is more “in depth and comprehensive” is to reference a source that totally contradicts what you wrote in post #15, which was -

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

You are digging a big hole for yourself on this entire issue. Stop denying that the homosexuals themselves hijacked the use of this word, altering it to suit their own political agenda. They have used it to promote a collective identity. The trouble is, all the connotations that go with it are now coming back to bite them on the nether regions. You too, thanks to your own disengenuousness.

Greek mythology is relevant to a discussion of eros insofar as it is necessary to understand the classical writers.

Again you have contradicted yourself. After I urged you to get up to speed on classical mythology, in post #15 you responded with this -

I was referring to literature and philosophy not mythology

Well, duh, classical literature is full of Greek mythology. It has to be. And you can’t study mythology without reading classical literature, philosophy included!

The older Aphrodite, Aphrodite Ourania (heavenly Aphrodite), the goddess of wisdom is the one who inspires homosexual love whereas the younger, baser Aphrodite born from Zeus and Dione is the one who inspires the love of women.

More errant nonsense.

The so called “older Aphrodite”, the original and pure form of the invocation, was not called “Ourania”. That was just one of many localised and cultic invocations of the original. There were dozens of these local cultish invocations of Aphrodite and they all developed later in Greek mythology. If you’d like to read a learned paper on the subject of Aphrodite Ourania, read Aphrodite Ourania of the Bosporus: The Great Goddess of a Frontier Pantheon. Aphrodite Ourania is mostly associated with the Bosporus and ‘Ourania’ refers to her divinity. Nowhere, in any literature whatsoever, is Aphrodite associated with homosexuality. That notion is a nonsense. Always, in all invocations, she is associated with new life, marriage and love. Never with the inherent sterility of homosexuality. The invocation that might appeal to the gay lobby is Aphrodite Philommedes and even she is associated with wanton and lustful heterosexual procreations.

Give it up. Any association of Eros with homosexual desire is a blatant re-write of ancient history, mythology and scholarship. Eros cannot be disassociated from procreation. Unless, of course, the gays attempt another hijack.

 

[iloveangels]

Still trying to explain the impossible I see. Give up, it’s a lost cause.

Homosexual sex = playing with yourself in the company of others while making up outlandish stories.

Homosexual inclination = being inclined to play with yourself in the company of others while making up outlandish stories.

 

[mitex]

Still trying to explain the impossible I see. Give up, it’s a lost cause.

Homosexual sex = playing with yourself in the company of others while making up outlandish stories.

Homosexual inclination = being inclined to play with yourself in the company of others while making up outlandish stories.

I object to your harsh descriptions as someone who has a homosexual identity and inclinations.

I am not a liar and I never have been. Not everything about homosexuals revolves around sex.

 

[iloveangels]

I object to your harsh descriptions as someone who has a homosexual identity and inclinations.

I am not a liar and I never have been. Not everything about homosexuals revolves around sex.

Well that’s a first. I’ve never heard a homosexual admit it before. To listen to them, you’d think it’s everything. And I tell you, I know what I’m talking about. I’m related to a couple of people who have their plumbing confused. I have had to lay down the law about what we will talk about in front of children and what we won’t. No sex talk or behavior in front of children. Heck, no warped sex talk or behavior in front of me! You’d think they would understand that and not have to be told. My heterosexual relatives all get it, OF COURSE, and didn’t have to be told… It’s just plain decency.

I also have relatives that like to drink. They know that they don’t come to my house drunk or I’ll throw them out. Same, same.

 

[mitex]

Well that’s a first. I’ve never heard a homosexual admit it before. To listen to them, you’d think it’s everything. And I tell you, I know what I’m talking about. I’m related to a couple of people who have their plumbing confused. I have had to lay down the law about what we will talk about in front of children and what we won’t. No sex talk or behavior in front of children. Heck, no warped sex talk or behavior in front of me! You’d think they would understand that and not have to be told. My heterosexual relatives all get it, OF COURSE, and didn’t have to be told… It’s just plain decency.

I also have relatives that like to drink. They know that they don’t come to my house drunk or I’ll throw them out. Same, same.

Straight from the Catechism **“They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”
**
You are stereotyping me on the basis of something I couldn’t help. It’s one thing to keep your children out from hearing about sex. Maybe you should join an EnCourage group or a diocese gay and lesbian ministry and you’ll see all sorts of celibate homosexuals and ex-homosexuals.

Not exactly sensitive in your statement

 

[John21652]

Straight from the Catechism **“They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”
**
You are stereotyping me on the basis of something I couldn’t help. It’s one thing to keep your children out from hearing about sex. Maybe you should join an EnCourage group or a diocese gay and lesbian ministry and you’ll see all sorts of celibate homosexuals and ex-homosexuals.

Not exactly sensitive in your statement

mitek, you need to calm down and stop thinking every post is directed at you. Iloveangels was responding to Dakota Roberts and his outlandish stories about Aphrodite and homosexuality. And they are outlandish. Yet you have made the decision, all by yourself, that she is stereotyping you. You are wrong and out of place.

She gave examples of how she has had to admonish homosexuals for the way they have behaved in her home and in front of kids. She has every right to do that. Her doing that in no way contradicts that part of the Catehism you quoted. In fact, she is obliged to remonstrate with them if they are putting the moral training of children at risk.

Now you are always using your own personal experiences to make judgements. Are you not? I believe that on another thread, someone even bought that habit to your attention. Yet here you are denouncing someone for doing exactly what you do, which is using your own experiences to form judgements. That is a double standard, because you want to be allowed to do it, but you don’t want anyone else to do it.

Now please get over this and apologise to Iloveangels for misreading and misinterpreting what she wrote and to whom it was directed.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Oh, is it now, Dakota. Let’s have a look and see, shall we?

Here’s a link to the OED: Oxford English Dictionary. Now click on that link and see what it says about ‘gay’. Here’s what it says about ‘gay’ -

Your reference to the OED because you think it is more “in depth and comprehensive” is to reference a source that totally contradicts what you wrote in post #15, which was -

You are digging a big hole for yourself on this entire issue. Stop denying that the homosexuals themselves hijacked the use of this word, altering it to suit their own political agenda. They have used it to promote a collective identity. The trouble is, all the connotations that go with it are now coming back to bite them on the nether regions. You too, thanks to your own disengenuousness.

Again you have contradicted yourself. After I urged you to get up to speed on classical mythology, in post #15 you responded with this -
Well, duh, classical literature is full of Greek mythology. It has to be. And you can’t study mythology without reading classical literature, philosophy included!

More errant nonsense.

The so called “older Aphrodite”, the original and pure form of the invocation, was not called “Ourania”. That was just one of many localised and cultic invocations of the original. There were dozens of these local cultish invocations of Aphrodite and they all developed later in Greek mythology. If you’d like to read a learned paper on the subject of Aphrodite Ourania, read Aphrodite Ourania of the Bosporus: The Great Goddess of a Frontier Pantheon. Aphrodite Ourania is mostly associated with the Bosporus and ‘Ourania’ refers to her divinity. Nowhere, in any literature whatsoever, is Aphrodite associated with homosexuality. That notion is a nonsense. Always, in all invocations, she is associated with new life, marriage and love. Never with the inherent sterility of homosexuality. The invocation that might appeal to the gay lobby is Aphrodite Philommedes and even she is associated with wanton and lustful heterosexual procreations.

Give it up. Any association of Eros with homosexual desire is a blatant re-write of ancient history, mythology and scholarship. Eros cannot be disassociated from procreation. Unless, of course, the gays attempt another hijack.

actually The Oxford English Dictionary uses a different site, it is accessed through oed.com. you are forgiven if that was a simple mistake.

I’ll reply to the rest later (heading out for Mass)

 

[mitex]

mitek, you need to calm down and stop thinking every post is directed at you. Iloveangels was responding to Dakota Roberts and his outlandish stories about Aphrodite and homosexuality. And they are outlandish. Yet you have made the decision, all by yourself, that she is stereotyping you. You are wrong and out of place.

She gave examples of how she has had to admonish homosexuals for the way they have behaved in her home and in front of kids. She has every right to do that. Her doing that in no way contradicts that part of the Catehism you quoted. In fact, she is obliged to remonstrate with them if they are putting the moral training of children at risk.

Now you are always using your own personal experiences to make judgements. Are you not? I believe that on another thread, someone even bought that habit to your attention. Yet here you are denouncing someone for doing exactly what you do, which is using your own experiences to form judgements. That is a double standard, because you want to be allowed to do it, but you don’t want anyone else to do it.

Now please get over this and apologise to Iloveangels for misreading and misinterpreting what she wrote and to whom it was directed.

Yeah Okay… Sorry…

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

mitek, you need to calm down and stop thinking every post is directed at you. Iloveangels was responding to Dakota Roberts and his outlandish stories about Aphrodite and homosexuality. And they are outlandish. Yet you have made the decision, all by yourself, that she is stereotyping you. You are wrong and out of place.

She gave examples of how she has had to admonish homosexuals for the way they have behaved in her home and in front of kids. She has every right to do that. Her doing that in no way contradicts that part of the Catehism you quoted. In fact, she is obliged to remonstrate with them if they are putting the moral training of children at risk.

Now you are always using your own personal experiences to make judgements. Are you not? I believe that on another thread, someone even bought that habit to your attention. Yet here you are denouncing someone for doing exactly what you do, which is using your own experiences to form judgements. That is a double standard, because you want to be allowed to do it, but you don’t want anyone else to do it.

Now please get over this and apologise to Iloveangels for misreading and misinterpreting what she wrote and to whom it was directed.

John, I agree with everything you said here, but I might add one point: I have lightly criticized iloveangels for the crudeness of her language; it’s not always very diplomatic, such as the time I saw her comparing homosexuals to dining room tables…but I don’t know, how do you feel about that?

 

[John21652]

actually The Oxford English Dictionary uses a different site, it is accessed through oed.com. you are forgiven if that was a simple mistake.

This attempt at splitting hairs wont help you. Both sites are owned and operated by Oxford University Press. The oed.com site is for paid subscriptions, or for use through paying institutions. The other is for open online use. They are the same thing and use the same sources. Hence, you cannot challenge the definitions I gave. Yours, however, are refuted.

I’ll reply to the rest later (heading out for Mass)

Don’t bother. You are buried up to your neck already. Any deeper and you’ll smother.

 

[iloveangels]

Straight from the Catechism **“They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”
**
You are stereotyping me on the basis of something I couldn’t help. It’s one thing to keep your children out from hearing about sex. Maybe you should join an EnCourage group or a diocese gay and lesbian ministry and you’ll see all sorts of celibate homosexuals and ex-homosexuals.

Not exactly sensitive in your statement

I’ll be “sensitive” to them, when they’re “sensitive” to me. No acting out in my house.

BTW, I have no intention of joining anything related to this issue.

 

[John21652]

John, I agree with everything you said here, but I might add one point: I have lightly criticized iloveangels for the crudeness of her language; it’s not always very diplomatic, such as the time I saw her comparing homosexuals to dining room tables…but I don’t know, how do you feel about that?

Well, judging from the experiences she has shared with us here, I might suggest she has had a colourful overview of homosexuals. I didn’t see the kitchen table comparison, so I can’t comment on it. Obviously she entertains homosexuals, so she isn’t biased, or discriminatory. However, it seems her hospitality has been abused and common decency has been forgotten in her presence. That is a ‘beef’ many people have, me included, which is that they demand to be treated with dignity, respect and equally, yet they flaunt their sexuality and throw it in our faces, totally forgetting all good manners. The ‘gay parades’ are a classic example of this flaunting and others have posted similar experiences of the most unchaste and immodest behaviour that they see in public places. We all tend to generalise from our own experiences and we are not always right when we do so. therefore we need to be cautious and prudent with our generalisations. CAF does require a cetain level of charity and decorum, so we must always be mindful of that and not be too ready to condemn all homosexuals as rude, hypocritical and demanding.

I will say this, though. Iloveangels bluntness just about qualifies her for ‘Honorary Australian’ status.

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

Well, judging from the experiences she has shared with us here, I might suggest she has had a colourful overview of homosexuals. I didn’t see the kitchen table comparison, so I can’t comment on it. Obviously she entertains homosexuals, so she isn’t biased, or discriminatory. However, it seems her hospitality has been abused and common decency has been forgotten in her presence. That is a ‘beef’ many people have, me included, which is that they demand to be treated with dignity, respect and equally, yet they flaunt their sexuality and throw it in our faces, totally forgetting all good manners. The ‘gay parades’ are a classic example of this flaunting and others have posted similar experiences of the most unchaste and immodest behaviour that they see in public places. We all tend to generalise from our own experiences and we are not always right when we do so. therefore we need to be cautious and prudent with our generalisations. CAF does require a cetain level of charity and decorum, so we must always be mindful of that and not be too ready to condemn all homosexuals as rude, hypocritical and demanding.

I will say this, though. Iloveangels bluntness just about qualifies her for ‘Honorary Australian’ status.

Fair enough. Here’s the episode I was referring to:

iloveangels;8990681:

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]

Fair enough. Here’s the episode I was referring to:

And?

It’s an analogy and you said you didn’t disagree with it.

Her “#Clue: the parts don’t fit”, is pretty true!!

I’ve used stronger language that what she has.

Lets face it, the gay protagonists have been pretty good at whitewashing what homosexual behaviour actually is. Doing that whitewashes away the inherent illogicality of it and disguises just how dangerous it is.

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

And?

It’s an analogy and you said you didn’t disagree with it.

Her “#Clue: the parts don’t fit”, is pretty true!!

I’ve used stronger language that what she has.

Lets face it, the gay protagonists have been pretty good at whitewashing what homosexual behaviour actually is. Doing that whitewashes away the inherent illogicality of it and disguises just how dangerous it is.

It’s an analogy I agree with but one I doubtless would not have used…I mean you can’t even use an analogy like that in polite company. Likewise I doubt anyone would resort to that kind of comparison around children. There are many minors on CAF, are there not?

I prefer arguments that don’t have to be altered according to the company present. It is completely devoid of “decorum” as you mentioned in your earlier reply.

You will not find ANY disagreement from me regarding your points on the decadence of homosexual behavior, but, come on…

 

[John21652]

It’s an analogy I agree with but one I doubtless would not have used…I mean you can’t even use an analogy like that in polite company. Likewise I doubt anyone would resort to that kind of comparison around children. There are many minors on CAF, are there not?

I prefer arguments that don’t have to be altered according to the company present. It is completely devoid of “decorum” as you mentioned in your earlier reply.

You will not find ANY disagreement from me regarding your points on the decadence of homosexual behavior, but, come on…

Well, tell me what you think of this typical Australianism -
Homosexual ‘marriage’ is about as usefull as t.i.t.s on a bull.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Oh, is it now, Dakota. Let’s have a look and see, shall we?

Here’s a link to the OED: Oxford English Dictionary. Now click on that link and see what it says about ‘gay’. Here’s what it says about ‘gay’ -

Your reference to the OED because you think it is more “in depth and comprehensive” is to reference a source that totally contradicts what you wrote in post #15, which was -

You are digging a big hole for yourself on this entire issue. Stop denying that the homosexuals themselves hijacked the use of this word, altering it to suit their own political agenda. They have used it to promote a collective identity. The trouble is, all the connotations that go with it are now coming back to bite them on the nether regions. You too, thanks to your own disengenuousness.

Again you have contradicted yourself. After I urged you to get up to speed on classical mythology, in post #15 you responded with this -
Well, duh, classical literature is full of Greek mythology. It has to be. And you can’t study mythology without reading classical literature, philosophy included!

More errant nonsense.

The so called “older Aphrodite”, the original and pure form of the invocation, was not called “Ourania”. That was just one of many localised and cultic invocations of the original. There were dozens of these local cultish invocations of Aphrodite and they all developed later in Greek mythology. If you’d like to read a learned paper on the subject of Aphrodite Ourania, read Aphrodite Ourania of the Bosporus: The Great Goddess of a Frontier Pantheon. Aphrodite Ourania is mostly associated with the Bosporus and ‘Ourania’ refers to her divinity. Nowhere, in any literature whatsoever, is Aphrodite associated with homosexuality. That notion is a nonsense. Always, in all invocations, she is associated with new life, marriage and love. Never with the inherent sterility of homosexuality. The invocation that might appeal to the gay lobby is Aphrodite Philommedes and even she is associated with wanton and lustful heterosexual procreations.

Give it up. Any association of Eros with homosexual desire is a blatant re-write of ancient history, mythology and scholarship. Eros cannot be disassociated from procreation. Unless, of course, the gays attempt another hijack.

Here is the SparkNotes of the relevant section of the Symposium

Still trying to explain the impossible I see. Give up, it’s a lost cause.

Homosexual sex = playing with yourself in the company of others while making up outlandish stories.

Homosexual inclination = being inclined to play with yourself in the company of others while making up outlandish stories.

Who are you talking to? No one is condoning homosexual acts.

This attempt at splitting hairs wont help you. Both sites are owned and operated by Oxford University Press. The oed.com site is for paid subscriptions, or for use through paying institutions. The other is for open online use. They are the same thing and use the same sources. Hence, you cannot challenge the definitions I gave. Yours, however, are refuted.

Don’t bother. You are buried up to your neck already. Any deeper and you’ll smother.

I actually amazed at how different the two sites are

The two uses actually overlapped and in some cases had substantial overlap in meaning

Well, tell me what you think of this typical Australianism -
Homosexual ‘marriage’ is about as usefull as t.i.t.s on a bull.

Ah, but those don’t help make people feel good about unbridled hedonism

 

[John21652]

Here is the SparkNotes of the relevant section of the Symposium

And that’s it? You go to Spark Notes for support. Oh, too funny.

You need to read Homer’s Iliad.

In the meantime, I’ll go buy you a shovel so you can dig yourself out.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

And that’s it? You go to Spark Notes for support. Oh, too funny.

You need to read Homer’s Iliad.

In the meantime, I’ll go buy you a shovel so you can dig yourself out.

I’m from the US, I’m used to people whine and complaining when I tell them to read a book or a section thereof so I have simple given up in that regard and simply link the SparkNotes. I have to admit that I read the Iliad (the whole thing, though in English) half my lifetime ago so my memory of it is perhaps not the best (I’ll see about reading it again during Spring Break).

 

[iloveangels]

Well, tell me what you think of this typical Australianism -
Homosexual ‘marriage’ is about as usefull as t.i.t.s on a bull.

Or as we say in the states, teeth on a chicken.

Is he spamming us with Spark’s Notes? Really. Wow, somebody who needs Sparks Notes to do the deed. You know he’s in trouble.