What's wrong with this logic?

My former Pastor advised me to separate myself from sin or anyone that condones sinful behavior. Also, he advised me to be more discerning. He said, if you're OK with having gay friends, why not befriend a liar, a murderer, or a rapist? He also justified being judgemental by saying things like we're all judgemental. Every time you go grocery shopping, you are using judgment on things you purchase, wear, use, etc. 

There are several logical fallacies and instances of poor reasoning in the argument presented by your former pastor:

1. **False Equivalence**: The comparison between being friends with someone who is gay and being friends with a liar, murderer, or rapist is a false equivalence. Being gay is a sexual orientation, whereas lying, murdering, and raping are harmful actions. Equating a person's identity with criminal or immoral actions is misleading and unfair.

2. **Slippery Slope**: The argument implies that accepting one behavior (being gay) inexorably leads to accepting far more severe and damaging behaviors (like lying, murdering, or raping). This slippery slope fallacy assumes without evidence that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact, which is not necessarily true.

3. **Appeal to Common Practice**: The justification for being judgmental based on the idea that "we're all judgmental" can be considered an appeal to common practice. Just because something is commonly done doesn't make it inherently right or ethical. For instance, many people may make snap judgments, but that doesn't mean it's a morally justified behavior to emulate.

4. **False Analogy**: Comparing the act of making decisions while grocery shopping to making moral judgments about people is a false analogy. Evaluating the quality of products is fundamentally different from passing moral judgments on individuals. The criteria and consequences are vastly different.

5. **Straw Man Fallacy**: The argument might misrepresent the viewpoint of those who support having gay friends, constructing a simplistic version of their beliefs in order to refute it more easily. Most people who advocate for having gay friends do not claim that one should be indiscriminately accepting of all behaviors.

6. **Oversimplification**: The pastor’s advice to "separate oneself from sin or anyone that condones sinful behavior" is an oversimplification. It ignores the complexity of human behavior, relationships, and the importance of empathy and understanding in social interactions.

7. **Ad Hominem by Association**: Suggesting that someone who is friends with a gay person is akin to associating with liars, murderers, or rapists is an ad hominem by association. It attacks the character of individuals based on their associations rather than addressing the substance of the argument or the behavior of the person themselves.

In summary, the logic presented is flawed due to false equivalences, slippery slopes, appeals to common practice, false analogies, straw man fallacies, oversimplification, and ad hominem by association. The argument conflates identity with actions and uses erroneous comparisons to draw inappropriate moral conclusions.

By making some assumptions as the comments below illustrate you can see some obvious fallacies. But, how about asking the pastor about sin in the Bible?

The Bible says (1 Samuel 18: 25-27) that David bought his first wife (Michal) for the price of 200 Philistine foreskins. The Bible also says that it was twice the asking price of 100 foreskins. David was not a very good negotiator. He apparently had not saved any foreskins, or, once sliced off, the shelf-life of the crown cap was short. So David and his men killed 200 Philistines, removed the pants of the dead guys, and peeled their bananas (not the whole thing like Lorena Bobbitt). Then, the groom-to-be paid King Saul the 200 fresh sausage collars as full payment for Michal and took her home. Cash-and-Carry deal. No liens. 

I will ignore the observation that these helmet covers are an interesting wampum to use when the Bible says (1 Chronicles 29:2-5) that gold, silver, and bronze were in use at the time. Oh well, if the father (King Saul) had a thing about broomstick beanies, then a young suitor who wanted to make the future father-in-law happy would go get them. Get them by hook or by crook, or in this case, by murder. For some unexplained reason, David wanted fresh ones — maybe all the turtlenecks in stock at the penile parts boutique were past the expiration date. One of those questions never answered. This leads us to ask: What was the exchange rate between a Philistine tallywacker tip and one cut from the member of his own guys? What was the rate of exchange of a genital mud flap for gold and silver?

The Bible also says David married more wives in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5) and other cities. But, the Bible is not clear about how many other wives he bought and if he bought them with bellcaps or gold. It is all so confusing. Maybe the pastor can help out with an explanation.

Lest you think I jest, foreskins are a big deal in the Bible. They are mentioned in 13 verses. ( bible.knowing-jesus.com/t. . .

Back to the subject. 1 Samuel 18: 25-27 contains absurdity, cruelty, sex, slavery, misogyny, murder, family values, injustice, and who knows what else. Ask the pastor if any of these Biblical acts are sinful. Does he condone them?

 

I would question whether this idea is contradictory to the teachings of the Bible. The list of behaviors that are considered sinful, particularly if you look in Leviticus or Deuteronomy, are pretty extensive. Getting a tattoo, eating shellfish, wearing fabric of mixed materials... The list goes on. The Bible teaches that all people are sinners, so trying to keep your social circle full of non-sinners is a futile task. Jesus himself embraced this, keeping the company of prostitutes and other social outcasts, and teaching that all people should be loved in spite of their sins.

That said, from a logical standpoint, I think the argument is pretty weak for a number of reasons.

You are advised to separate yourself from these people, but no reason is given. Does he think that being friends with sinners will cause you to commit the same sin? Or just to view it as acceptable when others do it? Or that the person would victimize you?

One thing that sets being gay apart from being a murderer, rapist or liar is that same sex attraction is involuntary. A straight person will not be turned gay by having gay friends. That is, aside from the secular belief that being gay is not inherently harmful to others.

There is no doubt that the company you keep can influence your views and actions. But, even for actions you could choose to take, you could choose not to do them. You could still find it disagreeable, immoral, or even reprehensible when a friend does them, but still recognize other aspects of that person's personality that makes it valuable to spend time with them.