All Sex Not Between Married People Should Be Criminalized Says AFA Host

Damn.... I would have been sent to jail quite a bit!!

Thankfully, I am married now...

However I must admit, that I did it, and I liked it when I was not married. Does that make me go straight to jail too?

:)

E

Hmmm good thing that AFA doesn't stand for Anal Fornicators of America.

Oh. And here I thought it stood for American Fornicators for the Anus. Silly me!

I went to this guys facebook page and clicked on his youtube links. 3-17 views per link...

AFA is the group that gave Newt Gingrich and that politician that owes $118,000 in child support while his kids are eating food from a food bank family values awards.

All Sex Not Between Married People Should Be Criminalized Says AFA Host

It's really sad that when people get old and can't get any, they want the rest of us to be miserable as them. Someone order him a plastic date from Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve. I'm sure tat will help ion curing his bitterness toward other people having sex.

If this man is so concerned about diseases, he might want to get himself check out. His mental disease has deteriorated his brain from operating in a normal mode.

Oh - the irony!

arieus

what, you wanna get him a real doll?

And to those who have sex outside of marriage, they will be arrested and sent to prison, where every orifice will be penetrated in a cluster-@!$%# of sin, thereby exponentially increasing the amount of extra-marital sex in our country. Undoubtedly Mr. Fischer's head will explode. Reason enough to grant his wishes.

Welcome to sharia law in America... the threat has always been from christians.

*facepalm*

Of COURSE it's Fischer running his freaking mouth again. Does this boy not know when to shut the hell up?? Tired of hearing the "gee MY morals are SO much better than everyone elses so we need to make it law!" You CANNOT legislate MORALITY you jackass, so quit trying!!

I am not anti Christian before you grab a rope,

There's beauty in religion.. and joy and love and hope.

and we're all searching for the solution to this colossal cosmic cause-

but who the @!$%# are you to turn your VIEWS into MY LAWS!?!?

(Eric Shwartz- Keep your Jesus off my penis) look on Youtube.. lol

So when does Newt get hauled off?

Teavangelical translation: As long as you're married, you can @!$%# anyone that's also married. C'ya Teavangelicals!

So when does Newt get hauled off?

Their rules only apply to the little people.

I am just not sure these people are doing "it" right. Hell you would think all these religious people (almost called them Jesus freaks but no blanket attacks in 2012!) would be encouraging sex, because after all if done right, you will see God. And if done really well you will see God multiple times and scream His name and exalt His glory! Can I get a witness?!

Hard2port....CENTCOM had started to allow married couples in Afghanistan to sleep together. There were several signs around the various camps attesting to this new policy. One week later the signs were amended to state that the couple had to be married to each other! GO ARMY!

I'd advise any God-boy (not that there's anything wrong with it if you aren't a puritan dip$h*t!) followers of this needle d*ck to be very careful when they come to bust this politically independent combat veteran fornicator, because while I generally try to avoid violence, attempting to bust me for gettin' some would likely earn S.C. (that's Social Conservative) Ponch and John a power ball jackpot of a$$ whoopin' !!

The fastest path for President Obama to win a second term is if social conservatives commandeer the campaign and make imposing their puritan social and sexual ideas on others the centerpiece of the 2012 Presidential campaign,

Bottom line, stay out of my bedroom and my foot will stay out of your a$$ !!!

Annnnd,vhat shall derrr statute oft limitations be? If you're still breathing,you vill be executed,den tried fort treason against derrr state!!!

Dis immaculate conception...VE VILL NOT HEAR OFT IT!!! Oft vit God's head!!! Sheesh.

heilll rrright!!! Dey vill alvays be rrright...and immune from prosecution.

Let me get this straight, if I am married, and the person I have sex with is married, then its alright even if we are not married to each other?

I didn't know the AFA was in the bag of the private prison industry. s/

Had something smart to say, but it couldn't counter his stupidity.

Well the ignorant voter allowed a war on drugs. Might as well have a war on sex too.

You CANNOT legislate MORALITY you jackass, so quit trying!!

Of course you can. I can list a slew of things which I think are immoral which I'm fairly confident you don't have a problem with them being illegal e.g. child molestation, statutory rape, rape, sexual assault, theft by fraud, arson, torture, maiming, assault, slavery. I mean I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure you think those are all immoral and rightly criminalized.

Those are all immoral, and mostly for the same reason (overriding another person's will through force or trickery).

Then we have the other things which are victim-less crimes, but which only increase the risk to other people, drunk driving, speeding, reckless driving, driving without a license. Some of those we would say are immoral due to the heightened risk they place others at.

You just think that not everything they find immoral should be illegal.

Can pretty much promise you there will always be some level of disagreement as to just how immoral something must be before it is should be illegal.

To most people he's a nut, to GOP he's kingmaker.

This kind of seems like the direction the GOP has been moving in since its take over by the Religious Right in this country.

Jake- NOT what I meant in that post and you know it!

afa from what I figure, sees it as OK to screw around as long as you and the pwerson wyou are screwing are married but don't necessarily see married to EACH OTHER as a requirement. And the FOOLS on the right fall for it. Having seen the examples of family values, fidelity and ethics the gNOp promote.......They NOTHING BUT hypocrites!!!!!!!!

First arrest warrant is for Newt Gingrich.

stormshadow

And yet it is exactly what you said. Your post assumes there are some universal rules which are beyond simply being the legislating of morality, when in effect there aren't. The only difference is you agree with some morality being legislated but not other. You've fallen for this propaganda that "legislating morality" is wrong, that imposing your views of right and wrong on others is wrong. But the fact is it isn't, it is exactly how it works actually.

NOT what I meant in that post

Then you should say what you mean. Would have been much more concise actually, what you meant was:

I don't think it is immoral and it shouldn't be criminalized.

Although maybe you would have said immoral enough.

Which is funny, because I can think of other scenarios with the same core issues that US citizens in general are still okay with being illegal.

Remember the man who was killed as a result of allowing a horse to perform anal sex on him? Washington made such actions illegal as a result. Now I can understand the argument that we make performing a sexual act on an animal illegal since there is no way to know the animal consents (which is really kind of funny since we can kill said animals almost entirely without consequence for rather trivial reasons) but an animal in performing a sex act on a human is demonstrating consent by performing the act, the human is also consenting, so why is it illegal beyond us not liking what they are doing?

And of course it applies to both living and dead animals which makes it all the more interesting. Think about that, you can kill it, boil it, rip its skin off, turn it into a hat, food, glue, or even jello. But if you @!$%# it we're gonna lock your ass up for 5 years.

But what did you say again:

but who the @!$%# are you to turn your VIEWS into MY LAWS!?!?

Tell me that isn't legislating morality. Hell in the case of a dead animal you aren't even talking about any form of hypothetical consent of the animal, it's dead. It is solely the actions of a single person, the animal's family aren't even going to have their feelings hurt.

Here's the difference, I would venture a sizable majority of people think sex with alive/dead non-human animals is disgusting, I count myself among that group. That's it, that's the difference.

And if you are a good Christian and repent then it doesn't count either, so only us heathens have to fear...

AFA ???

Americas' Freaking As$holes !!!

There is a law, it is God's law. Unless they want to claim they are God and are able judge based on the fact they have committed no sin, they are acting as the devil does. Trying to go before God and accuse us. Something they should understand though, a sinner condemning a sinner to God, doesn't sit real well with Him.

That shows me right there they do not have Jesus Christ in their life. They remind of the passage in The Bible. Where Jesus Christ is speaking of the Pharisee in the Temple who beats his chest and looks up and says to God- Paraphrased- Oh God I'm glad I'm not a sinner such as these men, for I tithe and I do this and I do that. Then there was a man who could not even look up but said to God be merciful oh God for I am a sinner not worthy of You.

Jesus Christ said the sinner left with the mercy of God while the Pharise condenmed himself.

Or as in the case with the woman who was brought before Christ by the Pharisees having been caught in the act of adultery. The Pharisees wanted her stones to death for that was the punishment prescribed-they had neglected to bring the man-if she was caught in the act so was he and the penalty was for both- Jesus bent down and started writing things in the dirt and then said let he who is withour sin cast the first stone and the crowd grudgingly left from the oldest to the youngest. He then looked at the woman and said woamn where are your accusers ?? She said they are gone and He said neither do I accuse you, go and sin no more.

The AFA should understand Jesus Christ is the One able to cast the first stone. When He returns it is as The KING of Kings, He will be a warrior and those who oppose Him will be sorry. But it is He that will judge, not them !!! Right now He is still the King of Mercy and calls all to Him in the Grace and Mercy He is able to bestow upon all who come to Him willingly and repenting.

Yeah, that Jesus fellow was pretty clear about folks needing to mind their own business. With so many of our own problems and faults to attend to, there is no need to be all in someone else's face about 'their' faults while neglecting our own.

What a shame that the loudest of his 'followers' know the least about what he taught.

nice link stormshadow, thanks for the chuckle! :)

jake, just because something is 'immoral' doesn't mean it should be against the law. The law should be there to protect and serve.

there are lots of things that I find disgusting and avoid because I find them disgusting, but just because they are disgusting, doesn't mean they should be illegal, it just means that I am a critical thinker that avoids those things.........

Weneeddarwin,

I am just not sure these people are doing "it" right. Hell you would think all these religious people (almost called them Jesus freaks but no blanket attacks in 2012!) would be encouraging sex, because after all if done right, you will see God. And if done really well you will see God multiple times and scream His name and exalt His glory! Can I get a witness?!

LOVE your post! FR on it's way for that one!

mt- glad you liked it. Meant as humor, but you have to admit, Eric has some good points in that tune :)

yes he does, I forwarded the link to some of my 'conservative uncles' -- should generate some spittle on the responses I believe :)

Thanks ERich....

Jake... Go through that list of immoral acts you just mentioned.....What do they all have in common? Thats right all the victims of those crimes would have been....wait for it....YES....all those victims were unwilling VICTIMS! Your argument is completly invalid.

I get the feeling that if not for the biological need to procreate, they would make sex criminal - maybe the lack of decent sex ed makes it hard to do it right for these guys?? PS I guess that wouldn't include all the rich people they like so much who never seem to be responsible for any actions, criminal or not .....

Jonathan-1917156

arieus

what, you wanna get him a real doll?

lol, I think a plastic doll with no brain is the right match for this sperm-wad.

Jake actually technically bestiality laws are dependent on the state. In 18 states it's perfectly legal for an animal to perform a sexual act on a person but not vice versa as that falls under animal cruelty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law

They are Barking Mad ...... this silly headline chasing just gets more stpid by the day. Damn silly idea, try and stop it .... bit like the days of Prohibition, only there is no need to import it from Canada to get round the dumb idea rofl :)

They have no idea of the real world.... they just prattle on in their own version of never never land. Its laughable .... but it gets real sad when some actually believe the nonsense.

Its a funny 'ol world :)

mtpromises

jake, just because something is 'immoral' doesn't mean it should be against the law

Did I state anything contrary to that? I believe I've made the case that things generally have to be considered sufficiently immoral, not just that they are immoral. You know let me check, make sure I actually said that:

Can pretty much promise you there will always be some level of disagreement as to just how immoral something must be before it is should be illegal.

Storms trite comments of don't legislate morality are still false. All laws are based on a finding of something being sufficiently "wrong" or immoral in some way so as to justify making them criminal matters.

just because they are disgusting, doesn't mean they should be illegal, it just means that I am a critical thinker that avoids those things.

You think your critical thinking skills are what makes you avoid that which you find distasteful? Some heterosexuals find the idea of homosexual intercourse disgusting. Some homosexuals are repulsed by the idea of heterosexual intercourse. Is it critical thinking that keeps them from enjoying it, or a personal preference? Some people find the taste of coffee and other bitter foods disgusting, is it critical thinking at work or just personal preference?

Or are you really just agreeing with what I stated in my first post that things have to be considered sufficiently immoral to justify outlawing them?

A moral stance by the way of limiting how much I intrude my (or your) will into the lives of others through the power of government.

Weneeddarwin

Well since you obviously didn't read my post I probably shouldn't respond. Because if you did read it you would have found this little gem:

Those are all immoral, and mostly for the same reason (overriding another person's will through force or trickery).

True enough I buried it in the third sentence, and separated it out by including line breaks before and after it, so obviously it would be easy to miss. / s

Your argument is completly invalid.

Which just means you did not understand the argument, and again didn't read the whole thing as you would have gotten to the victim-less crimes I mentioned speeding, drunk driving. Those crimes have NO VICTIMS, they carry a risk of creating victims, but violations do not require anyone to be harmed. Maybe you just did not understand the argument. All laws are about legislating a morality. That morality can be a number of different things:

• Causing harm to another is wrong (Victims): Rape, murder, battery
• Increasing the risk of harming others is wrong (No victims, risk alone does not make a victim): Speeding, Drunk Driving
• Taking of property owned by another is wrong (Victims): Theft
• Lying is wrong (Victims): Perjury, Fraud
• Intoxication is wrong (No Victim): Drug laws

They aren't absolutes, but they are moral stances. For instance not all lying is illegal, only under certain circumstances.

WTF-Really

Yes, and I spoke about one in particular to demonstrate that we do legislate morality. By the way, the Wikipedia article you linked to includes how jurisdictions without bestiality laws find ways around that by charging with other offenses:

In a 2005 Florida case, media reports state: "Florida has no law prohibiting sex with animals, so [the defendant] is charged with ... disorderly conduct, specifically a 'breach of the peace by engaging in sexual activity with a dog'..."

Or the Ohio case (a state with no bestiality law) but charged the guy with cruelty:

even though no harm was done to his animals

He was cruel when he did acts which did not harm them. Have to love that logic huh. How can one be cruel when they cause no harm.

It does demonstrate we will find a way to criminalize acts considered sufficiently immoral. Thanks for offering more proof of that.

I agree that we do and I think many of the morally based laws are assanine and need to be gotten rid of. I was simply stating it is not 'technically' illegal in some states though they will quite often find ways to charge offenders with something else.

I don't know how many people have been keeping track of the stuff Fischer's been spewing, but it's become apparent to me that he needs some serious psychological help.

Let him join the large line of Extremist Christians who also do

Speaking of slapping my hand....

Can I volunteer for permanent probation, and then just masturbate? Or do I need hard time?

don't you need hard time to masturbate?

rescue dogs:

I think you need to sit on the bench outside, until some slaps your hand ;)...no sin can go unpunished.

That is why I'm so thankful The Lord Jesus Christ paid for my sins. All sins have been punished, Jesus Christ took it all on the cross. So we received Mercy from Him and are able to come to Him and give thanks for His Love and Mercy.

These AFAer's are the spawn of satan doing his works. They act like satan doing his works accusing people before God for the sins His Son Jesus Christ has already paid for !!! Be gone with them and their kind, they try to take the Mantle of Christ from His head and place on satans head !!! Blasphemers !!! Idolotars, you worship the flesh as if you have control over it and know when you will be born or when you will die !!! Which sin is greater denying the power of Christ or sinning in the flesh ?? I say to you that all flesh sins, but Christ does not and is worthy to cleanse us of all sin !!!

Sorry for the rant, but hypocrites make me angry.

Sorry for the rant, but hypocrites make me angry.

You've got a lot of company there.

Cowboy my friend, I'd listen to your rants against the mass hypocrisy all damn DAY if some of them would understand they are NOT speaking for TRUE Christians such as yourself!

Peace.

I'm company as well..

I always cringe when I read about stupid statements/hateful comments all done in the name of God.

E

cowboygrandpa

I'm going to assume all of your declaration are true for the sake of argument. I would like some clarification.

Are the acts still sins in Christianity? Are they still wrongs?

All sins have been punished

Then there is no hell, yes? All sins were punished. So Christ paid for all sins, not just those of believers or:

• there is a hell and Christ did not pay for all sins, only some sins;
• there is a hell and Christ paid for all sins, but it wasn't enough and some sins still have to be punished again;,
• hell is now a one sin punishment, failing to believe in Christ, wouldn't that failing to believe be a sin then?

Which sin is greater denying the power of Christ or sinning in the flesh

I would put forth to you that all sins are equally wrong in the eyes of the christian god, all sins would damn one to hell. I mean really, lets imagine God seeing two different people and handing out judgement, does this fit with the christian bible:

1. Well this guy positively denied (think Dawkins) the power of Christ, wow that is really wrong, so eternity in hell-fire.
2. This guy was only a little wrong, never denied Christ, just never knew him and thus never accepted grace, but failed to live up to the law, so they only get eternity in hell-fire.

Christianity has one punishment, eternal suffering and agony. The crime (sin) doesn't matter, they are all treated equally.

Jake:

I will attempt to answer your questions as I understand them.

Are the acts still sins in Christianity? Are they still wrongs?

All sins have been punished

Yes, they are still sins in Christianty. None are able to live without committing sin. Even those of us who accept Christ still sin, but we are not able to live in sin, there is no joy or pleasure in it for us. We know it to be sin and The Holy Spirit convicts us and we repent of it. If we don't there is no fruit of Christ in our lives and we should seriously question why we call ourselves His.

Then there is no hell, yes? All sins were punished. So Christ paid for all sins, not just those of believers or:

• there is a hell and Christ did not pay for all sins, only some sins;
• there is a hell and Christ paid for all sins, but it wasn't enough and some sins still have to be punished again;,
• hell is now a one sin punishment, failing to believe in Christ, wouldn't that failing to believe be a sin then?

Which sin is greater denying the power of Christ or sinning in the flesh

Lets put it like this. Say you are being charged with mutiple felonies, but there is a person who pays for your felonies with their own time. The only catch is you have to accept what they've done for you and receive the forgiveness they offered you and change your life. So you say great and when you get to court the judge says you are free to go. But you question it and ask how that can be. It sounded great and you accepted the idea, but cannot put into practical application. So now you by denying what was done for you face the charges for all you did plus the charge of rejecting Him that paid it all for you.

Because you didn't believe in Him, what He did is only for those who believe and accept Him. It is for all because He paid it all, but all won't accept it.

I would put forth to you that all sins are equally wrong in the eyes of the christian god, all sins would damn one to hell. I mean really, lets imagine God seeing two different people and handing out judgement, does this fit with the christian bible:

1. Well this guy positively denied (think Dawkins) the power of Christ, wow that is really wrong, so eternity in hell-fire.
2. This guy was only a little wrong, never denied Christ, just never knew him and thus never accepted grace, but failed to live up to the law, so they only get eternity in hell-fire.

There is one sin all will be judged guilty of if they reject Jesus Christ and that is rejecting Him. By rejecting Him one blasphemes the Power of The Holy Spirit and says God is not able to save them. They will then face the all the sins they have committed the worse the sin the greater the punishment. Believe it or not it is up to you.

Whether one believes or not it still does not change what is, and what will be.

I answered your questions from the perspective of how I perceive God and His Way in Jesus Christ. There are Biblical passages that back up my statements. I take no joy in seeing anyone placing themselves in judgement, which is what is done by rejecting Him who saved you.