More Fun with Modern Sayings

I went over three modern sayings in a previous post that are popular to say, but just don’t make any sense. After writing it, a few more have come to mind.

1)   “What someone does in his/her personal life doesn’t affect me.”

To a certain extent, such libertine sentiment is true. What type of food a person chooses to eat doesn’t affect me. What kind of drapes a person puts up in his home doesn’t affect me. But often times so-called private actions can lead to public consequences, which does affect me.

This whole privacy matter generally deals with privacy in the bedroom. For instance, how many liberal protestors who advocate homosexual rights based on “My personal life isn’t the government’s business,” but quickly turn around and want to place limits on how big my “carbon footprint” is, or dictate if I can smoke or not, or even dictate how much electricity I can use? There’s a double-standard – they’re willing to let the government intervene on those issues, but not on sexual issues.

Regardless, what goes on in the bedroom can affect me by affecting society. What we do is often reflected upon our children. As I pointed out in a previous post, sexual immorality tends to go hand-in-hand with other forms of immorality. Thus, if one is engaging in sexually immoral acts in the bedroom, then one is more apt to perform immoral acts in public.

The connection to public corruption, however, is almost irrelevant. Though it may not be the government’s business what goes on in the bedroom or in a person’s personal life, as a human being I have an obligation to point out immorality when I see it. I have an obligation to point out what is wrong (in a loving way) in the way someone is acting. By being human, a person’s personal life is my business.

  Continue reading


There’s a big grassroots movement right now against California’s Proposition 8 (banning homosexual marriages) called “NoH8.” 

I find this group very interesting. For one, I’m assuming that their end goal is to change California’s constitution. But what bothers me is the automatic assumption that if you’re against homosexual marriage or against the homosexual lifestyle, you somehow hate homosexuals. This baffles me. 

I’m hate promiscuity – as are many other Americans (including homosexuals). Does this mean I hate people who are promiscuous? I hate alcoholism. Does this mean I hate alcoholics? I hate drugs. Does this mean I hate drug addicts? Just because I hate the action does not mean I hate the person involved in the action. The reason for this is that what we do does not always define who we are. 

So I can disagree with a lifestyle choice and think that choice is wrong, but still not hate the person who made the choice. 

Unfortunately, however, the hope of civil discourse is thin. If you disagree with a lifestyle, then you are automatically branded as a “hater.” I can’t disagree with homosexual marriages without likewise being called a hater. Thus, any hope of a “civil discourse” on the matter is impossible; any opposing views are pushed into the same category as “racism” and other social taboos and subsequently shut out. It’s the attitude of, “Let’s discuss this…unless you disagree with me.” 

Thus, the whole “No H8” rhetoric is disingenuous. Being against homosexual marriage is not the same at hating homosexuals.