Where is the logic flawed in this statement?

Some people believe that sexual orientation is a choice. A wicked, evil choice. Of course, those people are wicked stupid, too, and they can’t recall when they made their own “choice”.

Well, some believers of god only think god made them a certain way because there are penises and vaginas, so I’m curious to know what they actually think of god in relation to him/she/it creating gay humans. But I don’t think there’s anyone like that on Fluther.

The problem is that a great number of people don’t think that #2 is true.

OK, honest to…whoever… not trying to start something here, but why do you specify “America” in your Q about God and gays?

@JilltheTooth Just simply because we are headed in the direction of having same sex marriage states, which I’m for. And because I have no control of what other nations do, and my opinion is American bred for the American people. That’s all.

There is no flaw. It is what it is.

@JilltheTooth Good ole Jill.. always one to pick apart the details. xD

@whitetigress I’m not ashamed to say that I think homosexuality is wrong, but I don’t hate anyone who disagrees. It’s just different beliefs. We are all different. There’s nothing wrong with that.

The only flaw in logic here, occurs in the thoughts of narrow minded individuals who won’t acknowledge both statements as one in the same.

Of course, you do also have to consider that sometimes, some people, might make a conscious choice on the matter; in which case, logic is besides the point as both statements are just false.

OP: I’m not disagreeing with what you are saying about gays, but if you think you have presented an incontrovertibly sound argument, then you still have a few things to learn about logic.

If we accept that God makes people, yet we can find a flaw there, can we find the flaw in this reasoning below? It is the same:

1. I am blonde because God made me this way (blonde woman)
2. I am brunette because God made me this way (brunette woman)

I think being brunette is wrong.

@laureth Fallacious at best.

@whitetigress : Thank you for clearing that up, it makes sense. So many different cultures have so many different approaches to the issue.

Maybe it is because certain creatures think that everyone is born straight and only later choose to like the c**k. (which is obviously wrong, since no one ever consciously chose to become attracted to members of the same gender)

Oh, and to answer the Q, I don’t believe the logic of the two statements is flawed, because I don’t see them as being exclusive of each other. If you go with belief in God, then you could say that God also made chairs, and that’s OK, too.

God didn’t make chairs. La-Z-Boy makes chairs. And chairs that don’t recline are wrong, too.

<slaps @CWOTUS >

I thought it was “I am blonde because Clairol made me this way”.

As my AA sponsor used to say, either we’re all God’s children or none of us are.

Many Christians feel homsexuality, if not a choice, is caused by the devil’s influence.

I call those Christians “retards”

I like men and women, because God made me that way. (Male, female, bi.)

I don’t like sex at all, because God made me that way. (Male, female, bi.)

@submariner Enlighten me. I’m merely pointing out that a whole group of people that think being gay is wrong, is indeed a hypocrite. A student of logic has always to learn, forever and ever, so you are correct :D I do have a lot to learn now don’t I?

I like saying random things after the phrase “I like”. (Male, female, bi, tri, omni, other)
I don’t like saying random things after the phrase “I like”. (Male, female, bi, tri, omni, other)

Many would argue that the logic is flawed because God does not make people that are attracted to their own gender; He does not make mistakes. As @filmfann points out, those people often believe that the only way homosexuality can happen is through Satan and other evil influences.

Where your logic goes wrong is in assuming that hardcore Theists are logical. While it is possible for a person to be both devout and logical, there are also those who don’t even attempt to reconcile any conflicts between the two. You just have to acknowledge that some people are totally illogical and willfully ignorant.

“if you don’t believe in God just exchange the word God with “Science”

Oh my Science, I lol’d at that ;)

@jerv Thanks for reiterating my point.

Logically than you would have to say that anything man does that is deemed wrong, must be right because God made man and he is perfect and could do no wrong.

@Pandora But one doesn’t do “gay” one either is or isn’t.

“I yam what I yam.” —Popeye the Sailor Man image

“God made me that way” is a tautology and denies any element of choice or motive or free will by the individual. If we truly have no free will, moving through life as automatons, then we should suspend all moral accountability for all actions, which is absurd.

Since I’m a skeptic who expects physical evidence to accompany the existence of something. That’s what I mean by “exist.” I don’t find it useful to speak of a god who is real and who influences the world (including everybody’s sexual feelings), yet somehow leaves no physical evidence to convince non-believers of his existence. Occam’s razor would suggest that religion is all in your head.

As for sexual orientation, I think there’s evidence for both nature and nurture as factors, though that’s a legitimate scientific question outside the “god made it that way” canard.

@gasman You are diluting the essence of a gay person by applying fuzzy logic when you say we might as well suspend all moral accountability. We need to focus on the subject of “gay” rights. Not stray away from it. We don’t have control in what a gay person chooses. That’s not our job anyhow. Furthermore when you state the latter of your statement, I have a hard time conjurring up scientific evidence that aims to understand a “gay” persons function in nature. Who’s to say the big man upstairs or Mr. Nature got it right when he made us? For instance, what if God, or Nature knew humans would be so self consumed, but would still have babies, yet God or Nature still made a being compassionate enough to take care of children that were neglected by what science deems, “Fit” people (passing on genes to the next generation) and so forth.

@whitetigress It isn’t the choice of who a person is born to be sexually attracked too that I think most people object to. Its the physical act itself. Let’s take a man or a woman who have relations outside of marriage. It isn’t considered a sanctioned act because God gave people desire. Lust of any kind is considered wrong. Man and woman are only suppose to lay with each other to reproduce. Thats why annulments are allowed if one of the two is not able to reproduce.
I’m not personally saying this is right but my point is that neither comment is a reason for sexual acts outside of marriage.
In the end it doesn’t matter. We are all going to hell. Or at least I know I probably will. I just keep begging for forgiveness and hope he will. In the end no body knows why God creates anyone of us.
Being born to like one sex over the other doesn’t mean a person is sinless or is better than anyone else. Actions is what we will probably be judged for. Its not our desires that are flawed. But rather our acts.

@Pandora Say a 65 year old gay couple are married, and love each other. Obviously they are not having sex at this point in their lives. They are just in love with each other. What are your views on this situation? Do you think God disproves of their gayness then? Of course not, there is no sexual sin, no lust, just love. I’m so sick of this notion that Christians point out to me, “God hates the sin not the sinner.” Then what after the ‘Sin” or sex drive is gone? How is it wrong then? I honestly don’t get what Christians want as a whole. Our lives aren’t meant to control others, (as long as no one is hurting each other physically and emotionally) it’s to live our own lives. I’m sick of people trying to oppress others in the name of God. And I’ve read the bible feel free to use verses if you please.

@whitetigress Why wouldn’t a 65 year old couple being having sex?

OP: I’m sorry, if you really want to discuss logic as well as gay rights, your original question is just too muddled for me to disentangle in a paragraph or two. I’m not saying this to be snarky. You just need to understand basic logical concepts if you are going to claim that your view is more logical than someone else’s. If you think you have that understanding already, maybe you just need to formulate your questions more carefully.

This site gives a decent overview of the elements of informal logic.

I’ve never been a fan of the “God doesn’t make mistakes” argument because what about people who are born with some horrible genetic disease? Sounds like a mistake to me…

It’s just another way people have to legitimize homosexuality for themselves, implying that homosexuality is only “right” if people are born that way. As far as I’m concerned, it wouldn’t matter if being gay were a choice; that wouldn’t make it any more “wrong”.

@DominicX
I have seen one christian write, about people being born with diseases, that those diseases were a punishment for, quote, “sins committed in the womb”.

@whitetigress: Many, many people 65 and much older, of any gender, have lots of sex. Where did you dream up your assumption that they are not?

My bff is a 68 yr. old gay male; he and his partner have an active sex life.

Oh, Lordy, I was quite active, in utero and damn, somebody on Fluther be judging me for that now? Crap, one would think the statute of limitations would’ve run out.

@gailcalled I just picked an age. Fine let’s say the couple was 106 years old a piece. Then can we assume the sex drive is gone? Sheesh. I’m over this question.

I think it’s ridiculous because it would imply that god also chooses who has birth defects and who doesn’t. Not that being gay is like that, but you can’t really control either.

I’m not ashamed to say that I think being brunette is wrong, but I don’t hate anyone who disagrees. It’s just different beliefs. We are all different. There’s nothing wrong with that.

That doesn’t stop me from opposing equal rights for brunettes, though. My opinions are worth making laws out of, while the beliefs that I insist are just different from mine and nothing more don’t deserve the same respect. There’s nothing wrong with that either.

Here is a test you can suggest to anyone who maintains that all gender attraction is a conscious choice. Ask them what would happen if they suddenly met God and learned that they had chosen wrongly, and God demanded that they immediately decide to change the gender they find attractive. Let’s just say it’s a man who has been attracted to women his entire life, and is in his thirties contemplating marriage and starting a family, and he suddenly discovers that God INSISTS he choose instead to be attracted only to other men. Does anyone who isn’t bisexual truly think that they could just make a conscious decision to throw the switch into the reverse direction to please God, or man, or the state?

Lets take this torch into the hay barn. Even if you substitute science for God, the second would still be illogical. Because biologically males are made to go with females as up is to down, and hot is to cold. If each species on this planet forsook their attraction for the opposite sex in favor of the same sex, in about 150 years all life on this plant, less vegetation, would be dead. If two male silverback apes can keep the species going with out females, that would be a scientific feat.

This is undisputed, it would be narrow-minded to try to twist, or ignore that scientific fact. It is the heterosexualism, (for lack of a better word) that keeps the planet moving forth and populated, be it a person born with the attraction for another person. That is true the person is born that way, but to mistake “born that way” to correctly born the way in which science say. I am all ears on the logic of that. That would be as if to say conjoined twins were suppose to be born that way, that it was just another normal way humans were suppose to be born and live, it is just a very rare way, and to separate them would be going against the natural order of how their lives were suppose to go.

@Hypocrisy_Central You have just advanced a narrow-minded and twisted argument that is not the least bit scientific, and self endorsed it with the statement that anyone who disagrees with you is narrow minded and twisted. That’s not how scientific theories are developed. If your hypothesis was undisputed a minute or two ago, it is disputed now.

You have provided no proof that heterosexuality is the only logical outcome according to science, you’ve simply used argument by assertion. Science is never advanced simply by assertion. It is advanced with the scientific method, as explained in very understandable terms here.

Science has yet to fully understand what controls gender orientation in humans. We know that homosexuality and bisexuality occur in many other species in the animal kingdom as well. So to assert that science “proves” heterosexuality is the norm is to maintain that science is observing data, and then just tossing out any observed data that doesn’t fit well with your pet hypothesis.

With the human population on earth now at 7 billion and due to hit 8 billioin in 13 more years, with global warming and its assoociated climate change, severe weather and ocean level rise, with resource depletion and pollution proliferating; I am not at all clear on why it is imperative that every human breed as much as is possible. One could make a very scientific argument that the opposite behavior might be rational for a time.

@ETpro You have just advanced a narrow-minded and twisted argument that is not the least bit scientific, and self endorsed it with the statement that anyone who disagrees with you is narrow minded and twisted. What I asserted to, was to try to ignore the science of it because you don’t like where it points, is narrow-minded.

You have provided no proof that heterosexuality is the only logical outcome according to science, you’ve simply used argument by assertion. Are we talking straight logical science or fantasy? Female and male copulation IS what nearly all species on this planet uses to perpetuate itself. Unless you want to argue that is not the case? Do instances of same sexuality happen in the animal kingdom? Maybe so, but is that the usual or exception? If you have facts (more than one independent study) to say it not the exception but just another norm, them I will eat every last word.

Science has yet to fully understand what controls gender orientation in humans. That is fairly irrelevant. What makes them that way, or how they got to be that way does little to change the fact that the two together is not furthering life because they can’t create it, unless you are going to somehow try to tell me that that is not correct either.

Some people have it in their minds that being gay is a sin and God doesn’t create sin, sin arises from free will.

I disagree.

@Hypocrisy_Central

Since you asserted its scientific impossibility, I thought I’d show you that same-sex species have not died out. In fact, it happens often enough that there’s a word to describe it: parthenogenesis.

Aside from that, just because humans normally reproduce sexually in no way “invalidates” homosexuality in large populations. Studies of rats have shown that as populations increase, so does homosexuality. It may be nature’s way of helping to reduce overpopulation in a completely normal way, even though the mechanism is not yet fully understood.

And aside from that, what if… just suppose… what if homosexuality were a conscious and deliberate choice? What then? Who the hell cares, as long as rape and force aren’t used?

@CWOTUS I thought I’d show you that same-sex species have not died out. In fact, it happens often enough that there’s a word to describe it: parthenogenesis. OK, fair enough, I will amend my 1st comment to in 150 years the world will be left populated with lower life forms like lizards, insects, and amphibians. Where is the evidence that the higher life forms, mammals, and higher fish like dolphins, whales, and sharks will clone themselves to keep going? I see no dispute that those species will die off, unless you can point to some study that says they won’t.

And aside from that, what if… just suppose… what if homosexuality were a conscious and deliberate choice? If it is a choice and that choice causes those who choose it distress, then they can’t cry over choosing it. If they didn’t choose it, then it is no different than any other condition one finds themselves born with, and it should be treated no worse or better, but that never happens with anything a person happens to be born with.

@Hypocrisy_Central

Do you suppose that a roughly 10–12% incidence of homosexuality in human populations is some kind of danger sign to the future of humanity? Do you think the fact that around 1 person in every 8 is homosexual means that humanity is doomed as a species? It had better hurry up. It seems like there are a lot of other things closer to the front of the line threatening our long term survival.

Thanks for chiming in, @CWOTUS. I’m late to the party, and you have said just about everything I would have said in response to @Hypocrisy_Central‘s rebuttals.

@Hypocrisy_Central Just to add to what has been said, the incidence of infertility is as high or higher than the incidence of homosexuality in the world. Neither has wiped us out yet. Also, gay people frequently have children (either through science or while still in the closet). Being gay doesn’t make your parts stop working.

@CWOTUS*Do you suppose that a roughly 10–12% incidence of homosexuality in human populations is some kind of danger sign to the future of humanity? Do you think the fact that around 1 person in every 8 is homosexual means that humanity is doomed as a species?* No. Where did you get that? What I alluded to was if all higher species stopped going male female to same sex, the world population of higher mammals, man included would be gone in about 150 more years had that happened today. I don’t think any amount of that science can be disputed.

@TypoKnig Just to add to what has been said, the incidence of infertility is as high or higher than the incidence of homosexuality in the world. Neither has wiped us out yet. I do not believe I said gayness would wipe out the world in its present state, only if it occurred more than what is normal heterosexual birth rate. Unless someone can show how you can have 80% or more same sex union and have offspring produced other than by hatching, cloning, or some alternative to birth.

Oh, sorry, @Hypocrisy_Central. I didn’t realize you were going for a bit of hyperbolic nonsense there. Never mind; carry on.

”if all higher species stopped going male female to same sex, the world population of higher mammals, man included would be gone in about 150 more years had that happened today.”

And if every person on the planet would go from whatever they do for a living to building cars in a factory, the same would happen within a few years until all food reserves are depleted.
Therefore building cars in factories is wrong

fantastic logic

I don’t agree with a lot of your answers, @ragingloli, but when you nail it, you nail it hard.

@ragingloli And if every person on the planet would go from whatever they do for a living to building cars in a factory, the same would happen within a few years until all food reserves are depleted. Whoa Nelly, let me get my hip waders on 1st. First off, that is likely not to happen even IF everyone chose to make cars. The resources to produce cars would be stripped out before the food all went. If mankind failed it would be because people allowed themselves to starve to death while making cars and worked at making cars every hour they were awake. If they didn’t, EVERY HUMAN body is wired to get hungry, gays and straights. Food is always renewing, plants as well as animals. Even out in the wild. Even grubs, which most would not eat, are food, and constantly growing. For all plant and animal life to be wiped off the face of the Earth, man would have to spend that auto building time, hunting, fishing, and gathering and that would be every body of water and in ever terrain of land; from the lowest valley to the highest mountain. There is hardly enough time for man to get every living creature before it can reproduce, and if there is any animal or fish on the planet, they have the capacity to be in the food chain. Sorry, big swing and a miss.

@Hypocrisy_Central I just can’t agree with the logic that [insert action here] is morally wrong because if everyone did [insert action here], humanity would end. That would imply that it is morally wrong to be chronically ill, because the chronically ill often can’t reproduce or don’t live long enough to do so, and even if they do, they tend to use up a lot of resources, and if everyone used that many resources the earth would quickly be depleted. I don’t think it’s wrong to be ill, do you? The point is that such traits, illness and homosexuality both, tend to remain at fairly steady percentages, minority percentages, don’t show any signs of “taking over the world,” and we have the resources to deal just fine with a small percentage of the population being ill or gay, so why does it really matter if hypothetically we would be in trouble if the percentages suddenly inflated?

@Mariah I just can’t agree with the logic that [insert action here] is morally wrong because if everyone did [insert action here], humanity would end. First off, I did not allude to any right or wrong, this IS Fluther, after all. I was scientifically addressing the OP comments, ”1. I like women, because God made me that way. (Male)”
”2. I like men, because God made me that way. (Gay Male)” The question is the logic, correct? If the purpose of men being made the way they are, and women being made the way they are, is the purpose of having opposite parts that match, like a nut and a bolt, or software with hardware, having two of the same kind is useless to perform what you want, in this case reproduction. Had man be meant to be with man, and women with women, science would have had some mechanism like a type of hermaphrodite, allowing the individual to play either sex as they chose depending on the relationship. Take the logic of these very PCs we use to comment on this. If any one of us ad two laptops, towers, etc. and no software, all we would have is fancy paperweight with electric circuitry and blinking lights. If we had disc after disc with no hardware to read the programs, movies, or games on them, we would have some unique drink coasters but we would not be using the Internet. That is a physical fact, sans any morality. The physical fact is that reproduction was made for men with women, and visa verse.

Sorry, misinterpreted the debate as an argument of morality. I still don’t think it really matters if some people are in romantic relationships that cannot result in reproduction. The planet is already overpopulated; not every relationship has to revolve around copulation. Sorry again for misunderstanding you, though.

Furthermore, even though men and women were “meant” to be paired in the sense that we need heterosexual couples for the species to continue, this does not mean that homosexual pairings can’t occur naturally. I don’t know if that’s what you were trying to imply. Plenty of phenomena occur naturally that do not support reproductive success.

@Mariah I still don’t think it really matters if some people are in romantic relationships that cannot result in reproduction. That maybe so, but I think that is a different story or question to be dealt with.

The planet is already overpopulated; not every relationship has to revolve around copulation. Truth be told, the planet is not over populated. This planet has 10s of millions of acres of land that is not inhabited. The thing is, certain areas are more desired and thus too many people which to live in those areas causing it to be over populated. If everyone in every city spread out over all the open territory of the Earth, I still do not think we would be crowded in like sardines.

Furthermore, even though men and women were “meant” to be paired in the sense that we need heterosexual couples for the species to continue, this does not mean that homosexual pairings can’t occur naturally. Again, a different issue to me. Occurrences of homosexuality has little to no weight on the logic of having a being, or apparatus what is suppose to work in conjunction with something else. Like hardware with software, even if somehow someone wanted to place two type of software together and forsake the hardware, it would be illogical to do so if you want to be able to do something specific like get on the Net, do a spreadsheet, watch a YouTube video, or shop online, etc. So even though homosexuality spawns in humans, the biological, and scientific make up and purpose for having men and women is that humans continue and survive because that is the way more humans are made. I have not seen anyone dispute that simple fact, at least not yet, but I am waiting.

Overpopulation has to do with a lot more than just crowding. Resource depletion and having enough food and water to go around to name a few.

I guess if you define a “working”, properly functioning human being as one that is reproducing, then we are supposed to “work” in heterosexual pairs, but unlike a computer without software, humans are useful for plenty of things when unpaired; we can do other things besides reproduce.

I guess I don’t understand what you are trying to prove. Yes, we need to be paired with an opposite sex person to reproduce (barring in vitro, etc). Do you think the meaning of life is to reproduce? I’m just not following I guess.

@Mariah Overpopulation has to do with a lot more than just crowding. Resource depletion and having enough food and water to go around to name a few. Again, that is deceptive. Resources in some areas of the world or in short supply, but others, as here in the US, have more than what they need. I don’t think 60% of the US being overweight is due to glandular or thyroid problems; many just eat too much. If we took all the food waste here in the US and distributed around the globe, some of those starving areas would not be starving. We have enough food, and water, etc to take care of the world; it is more of a distribution problem.

….but unlike a computer without software, humans are useful for plenty of things when unpaired; we can do other things besides reproduce. Right, and a disc can be useful for other things than running or installing a program, it can be used in a mobile, a sculpture, as a drink coaster, a mini skit target, wheels on a toy, etc., but that is not its intended purpose. Going back to the OP question as to why both statements cannot be correct, it is because if a person creates something to do a specific purpose, even though it can be used for an alternate purpose, it is not the correct one. Those who made a butter knife did so to spread butter, not undo screws, which it might be able to do. Humans can play gold, dance, swim, and many other things, but that is not a biological purpose.

@Hypocrisy_Central You originally asked where your logic was flawed. You began with a premise that was false—that all humans on earth might tuyrn to same sex partners. Thst is just as absurd as the premise that @ragingloli offered of all humans suddenly turning to building cars. Neither is real. Neither has any remote chance of happening. When you begin with a false premise, the solidity of the logic you use to reach a conclusion is immaterial. Your conclusion is not necessarily valid, because your premise is not true.

And whiole you are crowing about the resources that the US has, here is some sombering information to consider about how our situation here, as less than 5% of the world’s population, compares to the entire demographic. http://www.miniature-earth.com/

Okay, so humans as “designed” (by God or evolution, though we may disagree) are supposed to reproduce. I still don’t understand what you’re trying to prove. Do you disagree that it is possible for some humans to be designed “wrong,” in a way that does not lend itself to reproduction? Is that what you’re trying to argue? We can argue all day about whether it is morally “wrong” (I don’t think so because I don’t think it is essential that every person reproduces), but we can agree that it is not as nature “intended.” My question then is: so what? Do you think it is impossible for nature to mess up? Do you think it’s bad if nature messes up? Unless you think it’s impossible for nature to mess up, I don’t know how you can disagree with the possibility that “I like men because God/nature made me that way.” If you disagree because you think it’s bad, that’s another argument altogether.

I apologize for my use of language here, I do not think of gay people as being “made wrong,” it is offensive and I’m sorry.

@Mariah I don’t know who you’re responding to, but here’s a point in your favor.

My $400 vacuum was designed to suck stuff off a carpet, but it freakin doesn’t!
(lol, sorry… My vacuum was the bain of my past weekend)

Also, you could argue, that we are “designed” to live, and yet we die (sometimes immediately infact).

=J