DiscussMormonism.com

No, not the real Zion, a.k.a. Jackson County, Missouri. I mean the Zion that the church promoted after the real Zion became unatainable. I'm talking about Salt Lake City, Utah.

No, this isn't a call to repentance.

Salt Lake City has been revealed as the Gayest Town in the United States!

Being gay, and also former LDS, this means there are a great many reasons why you should feel connected to Salt Lake City. In fact, you'd probably have the best chance of finding other ex-LDS gay folks in SLC, which would allow you to resonate on multiple levels. I mean, what's not to love about this?

Anyhow, just giving you the heads up.

Isn't it impossible for a man who was once married to a woman whom he had physical relations with to be gay? Yes, I think it is.

Maybe those millions spent on prop 8 in California would have been better spent fighting evil in Salt Lake.

bcspace wrote:Isn't it impossible for a man who was once married to a woman whom he had physical relations with to be gay? Yes, I think it is.

Is it possible for a married man with children to leave his wife and children and turn gay? Yes, I think it is!

Fence Sitter wrote:Maybe those millions spent on prop 8 in California would have been better spent fighting evil in Salt Lake.

So far, we've won.

bcspace wrote:Isn't it impossible for a man who was once married to a woman whom he had physical relations with to be gay? Yes, I think it is.

Well, that tears it. Sorry Paul, you're not gay after all. Despite your feelings, your really just going to have to get over it.

Isn't it impossible for a man who was once married to a woman whom he had physical relations with to be gay? Yes, I think it is.

Is it possible for a married man with children to leave his wife and children and turn gay? Yes, I think it is!

So you're saying homosexuality isn't inborn? I agree.

Maybe those millions spent on prop 8 in California would have been better spent fighting evil in Salt Lake.

More gays in California so more bang for the buck.

bcspace wrote:Isn't it impossible for a man who was once married to a woman whom he had physical relations with to be gay? Yes, I think it is.

Only if you view sexuality as a strict dichotomy between straight and gay. If it's not, then your assertion is nonsensical.

Yahoo Bot wrote:
So far, we've won.

Nah, you've already lost. You know the demographics as well as I do. You can see the train coming down the tracks. Gays will be getting married in Salt Lake City before long. You lost in the hearts and minds of the next generation. Now all we have to do is wait for people like yourself to die.

by the way, it wouldn't be surprising for SLC to have a large per capita gay population given its status as the the major urban center around with a substantial non-LDS population in a large geographic area dominated by fundamentalist opposition to homosexuals. That doesn't mean SLC is especially gay friendly, though. It might just mean that if you live in St. George and you're gay, SLC is a more friendly place to be. SLC - Utah's boystown, apparently.

bcspace wrote:Isn't it impossible for a man who was once married to a woman whom he had physical relations with to be gay? Yes, I think it is.

No it isn't. Once again, you are the victim of your own rigid thinking.



...............

By the way, if you are going to operate in such a legalistic and pedantic manner, the least you could do it learn how to properly translate natural language into informal logically unambiguous statements.

For example, the following two temporal statements are not logically equivalent (or even close).

A: The was no death in the world before time t.

B: There was a period of no death in the world just prior to time t.

or

B': There was a finite period immediately prior to time t when there was no death in the world.

Similarly, the following two spatial sentences are not logically equivalent:

C: There are no dogs in the house.

D: There is an area in the house that is devoid of dogs.


Your equivocations are almost as silly as what drives the following "joke":


Nobody bought the groceries today. Nobody is so helpful. I think I will make him a nice dinner for his trouble.

All your awkward weaseling just keeps you from seeing the obvious: Evolution by natural selection is not in harmony with the gospel narative (either materially or spiritually).