Fuck All Ya'll [chat]

I leave to have an existential crisis after seeing the woman I love with her husband in Vegas and you cockheads can’t even keep the fucking [chat] threads updated?

I’m surprised you can wipe your asses without me.

Also,

Christine O'donnell

Christine O'Donnell Opposes Masturbation

She is batshit crazy.

Appealing to Wiser Heads

Presented for consensus-

Trap?

BE SAFE!

Canada wants to prevent accidents.

this is there attempt.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.

">

John Waters: Ban Heterosexual Divorce

“I think we should just try to make heterosexual divorce illegal.”
-John “fabulous” Waters

If the problem with homosexual marriage is its flagrant affront to the instution of marriage, its chronic undermining of a national and spiritual institution, its reckless endangerment of the only manner by which two souls may be coupled in eternal bliss by our Lord God, Jesus Christ, then it stands to reason that any possible danger posed to this sacred instutition need be guarded against with the full force of both law and social standard.

So, let’s ban divorce.

I’ll agree that the marriage of faggots fundamentally undermines the validity and meaning of the sacred bond of marriage. After all, how could two penises or two vaginas ever exemplify the bond created by a dong and a pussy? It’s simply biologically impossible. Yet it stands to reason that if two guys ass-fucking undermines the bond of holy matrimony then so, too, does divorce, the literal destruction of marriage.

And that shit just ain’t right.

After all, what could possibly be more beautiful than marriage, more meaningful than marriage? Two horny dipshits, clinging to an entrenched yearning to fuck striving desperately to uphold the values of a book only half of which they’ve read? It’s like something you’d find in a fairy tale. How better to articulate a mutual appreciation, a lasting and eternal respect for one another, than standing in front of a bunch of jackasses, listening to some fuckwit with a Master’s in Theology preaching antiquated value systems at you? You can’t get any more romantic than that; it’s impossible.

The only manner by which two persons can be joined in love is by marriage. The only way for two persons to find spiritual or emotional intimacy is by a social instution. Power of attorney, the joint filing of taxes? There exists no better a way for two souls to be mutually entwined.

This is further supported by secular marriage, the “non-religious” form of marriage, as if there could ever be such a thing. Two persons in sweatpants wandering to the local courthouse to sign a paper? Two shitheads wandering into the Nevada desert to fabricate vows in front of some sea captain they’ve just met? That’s exactly what Christ had in mind. Even if the two persons conjoined in the legal bond deny the religious implications we know they’re there; like a fetus in a dumpster outside a high school prom its existence is simply understood. They deny Christ, they deny religion, but it’s still there. How could religion ever be estranged from marriage? It’s impossible.

So, since marriage is always only ever a religious engagement, always only ever a spiritual bonding of two eternal souls, this cornerstone of civilized society needs to be protected. Not only against faggots, homos, and dykes, but also against divorce.

We need to make impossible heterosexual divorce; we need to bolster and support the institution of marriage. For if any two people, once married, can dissolve the marriage by filing legal fees? What hope has western society? What hope have we as a species? If two people can fuck for a while, get bored, and move on to find new partners? How can the human species thrive? It’s impossible.

Divorce fundamentally undermines the value, meaning, and security of marriage. The ability to leave, the ability to change one’s mind affords individuals a degree of freedom which fundamentally jeopardizes any hope of meaningful inter-personal relations. As finite, limited, mortal beings we exist, at any moment, fully capable of understanding the entire scope of our needs, hopes, and desires for the entirety of our lives. At 21 years old a person is fully capable of deciding upon their eternal partner. What possible change could occur between a person at 21, 40, 70? If Fuckhead McGee wants to marry a fucking Jap at 25? Then obviously Fuckhead McGee will never want anyone other than the shitheaded goldfish tender to whom they bond. No one ever changes their mind, ever, and divorce invites into the mental faculties of a human being an option that would not be there otherwise. Were it not for divorce, couples would exist together in eternal bliss. After 20, 30, or 40 years of marriage no two people would ever tire of one another, ever meet someone new, ever desire someone different.

Divorce is what invites the specter of possibility into marriage, and so it must be destroyed.

Marriage is fundamentally founded upon inflexibility, permanence, and rigidity. Limitation, the quashing of possibilities, and rigid adherance to value systems are the quintessential aspects of the instutition of marriage. Because if there are three things that capture the human experience it is inflexibility, permancence, and rigidity. Persons are not fickle, persons are not fleeting, existence is not impermanent. Every person knows, at every moment, what they shall desire for the rest of their lives. Marriage allows for the acknowledgement of this fundamental feature of existence. Marriage does not posit something extra onto existence, craft a nonsensical and illogical structure which is fundamentally contrary to the nature of being. No, marriage exemplifies that which is already there. Because if there is one thing which defines the members of the human species, it is permanence, straightforwardness, and decisiveness.

Divorce exemplifies all that is wrong with the human species, divorce brings out the worst in us. And if we allow for the possibility of divorce we invite into our society the specter of change, the specter of possibility, the openness to an acknowledgement that a person in their mid-20s may not know that which they shall desire for the rest of their lives.

And that acknowledgement sews the seeds of discord which shall reap from humanity the bounty of joy and merriment. The acknowledgement that persons can make mistakes, that persons may be fickle, fundamentally undermines the entirety of the human species.

We need to end divorce, we need to render impossible the changing of minds. When two people get married, their gentitals need to be eternally welded together in holy matrimony to ensure that their brood multiply quickly and that their love, founded, entrenched, and bonded for eternity never suffer the possibility of an acknowledgement of error.

Human beings never make mistakes, never stray from the correct path, and are always acting towards their most perfect ideals. Divorce is a demonic dissolving of these fundamental human values. And so divorce, like homosexual marriage, needs to be eternally cast aside by the totality of existence as a needless, causeless, valueness blight on the history of our magnanimous species.

John Waters is right. If faggots fundamentlly undermine marriage then so, too, does divorce. And since two dudes cannot buttfuck in holy matrinomy, since two dykes cannot 69 in holy matrinomy, then as sure as shit two hetero-normative bastards ought not to be allowed to get out once they’ve gone in.

If homosexual marriage is allowed, western society would collapse. In the same way that if heterosexual divorce is allowed, western society could not function.

At all.

Ever.