Importance of Being Immortal?

From my understanding of Socrates' ideas regarding Love--Eros--in Plato's Symposium, ideas derived from the prophetess Diotima, Love is the importance of being immortal, as Love is simply a longing for immortality.
Surfacewise, this appears rather obvious. Procreation, the frequent result of a shot of Eros, is immortality as far as species continuity goes.
This is not good enough for Socrates, er Diotima, though.
According to the Symposium, human children, of man and woman, are far inferior to intellectual children, ideas, of man and man. As Socrates is told, "everyone would choose to have for himself children like these rather than the human kind."
(Is there really any need to point out the shimmering argumentative flaw here, that Socrates, Aristophanes, Phaedrus, etc., whose speeches are soooo informed, are the organic products of man and woman? And Diotima herself? Perhaps her role as a prophetess related in a third-generation-told tale relegates her as something a bit more than an average woman capable merely of assembly-lining flesh-and-blood copies of the Athenian populace.)
Alright, Love is a longing for intellectual immortality, something the beasts and baser human beings--i. e. women?--cannot aim for. I see this in Forster's Maurice, the title character, who is constantly referred to as not very intelligent, at least not academically, and his longing to join with Clive is in part fueled from a desire to produce intellectual offspring (echoes of the teacher/student pederastic relationship Pausanius attributes to Eros). Maurice's reading of the Symposium at Clive's insistence aided him greatly in understanding himself, something seen as an intimate academic leap, perhaps, and therefore Maurice probably sees a life with Clive filled with similar intelligent leaps, the offspring of which would help Maurice understand and make sense of his world--a world potentially filled with intellectual children for the two of them to enjoy.
And, throughout Forster's book, Maurice, and also Clive and Alec Scudder, reveal another of Eros's traits as revealed to Socrates--that of a "skilled hunter, always weaving devices" who "plots to trap the beautiful and the good."
Does not Maurice largely weave a deception in his environment, fronting heterosexuality, seeking an opportunity to reveal himself?
Does not Clive erotically ensnare Maurice, whom he sees as beautiful, "trapping the beautiful?'
And does not Scudder "weave devices" to lead Maurice his way, threatening blackmail in a "plot to trap the beautiful and the good?"
As to which carries the most Eros among them, I don't know. I'd like to say Scudder, merely due to his lowered social standing, one perhaps less adverse to go, in Diotima's description of Eros, "homeless, always lying on the ground without a blanket or a bed, sleeping in doorways and along waysides in the open air." A more immortal picture of what love must withstand I cannot see. I also cannot see Clive undergoing such for Maurice.
And Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest?
Eros's deceptive qualties as a "skilled hunter" come through in Algernon's character, although I cannot see them leading to a life of intellectual children, only biological ones--Algernon deceitfully copies the address of Jack Worthing's country home to meet up with Cecily, whom he decides to marry and seed with non-intellectual offspring.
I can say no more 'til I find out if Wilde ever read Plato's Symposium.
Chances seem good, but . . .