Jon Stewart is great.

One of your darlings, George Orwell was also an admitted socialist.

Hypocrisy of the left?......... "Good point"?!

What is the difference between some unionists busting a pinata with Nikki Haley's face on it, and Rush Limbaugh running down a life-sized image of Al Gore in his car, then stopping to back up over it? You posted a clip of that here on your website about two years ago. And said it was "comedic gold".

THAT'S hypocrisy.

Well, I was mostly thinking about Nugent calling Democrats worthless whores and making sexual and violent innuendos about "sucking on my machine gun".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy8RIiTyhMI

But there are also his song lyrics, or his pre-release cover art for 2007's "love grenade".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nugentlovegrena...

P.S. Did you criticize Limbaugh for calling a woman "a slut". I hate that kind of hate-filled language, from left or right.

Sandra Fluke and Planned Parenthood have condemned Hustler magazine (according to your own link). I would stand alongside them and do the same. The pinata incident is also disgusting and unacceptable.

Now, Todd, man up for once in your life and condemn Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent, or prove yourself a hypocrite.

Oh, no surprise. I've seen worse: http://www.salon.com/2012/05/14/chomsky_on_obama/

"Bush disappeared and tortured those the US disliked, while the Obama administration simply "murders them"

Well, I am not seriously saying you're borderline radical Muslim. Or you couldn't have that drink. I am sure you realize I was merely pointing out the silliness of your final statement.

Radical Muslims are against gay marriage, too. Who knew that Todd was in line with radical Muslim belief?

So:

1) The “homosexuality is wrong because it’s against evolution” doesn’t hold up.
2) The “slippery slope” argument saying that legalizing homosexuality will lead to legalizing real depravity doesn’t hold up.

You are left with a theocratic argument: that your whacky religious views should be the basis for laws that violate other people's freedoms..

I was aware this was for Christians. However, my refutations apply anyway. There is no basis for Christians to oppose gay marriage.

Evolution does not have a goal or aim. This is a false understanding of what evolution is. The famed evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker has chosen to have no children and happily declares “my genes can go jump in the lake”. The ideas of “failure” or “success” in discussing evolution are simply the results of anthropomorphism. Todd you have misunderstood what evolution is. I have now corrected you on this and you have no more reason to spout the misconception that evolution has a purpose that homosexuality violates.

Your slippery slope remains a silly argument. Yes, I would say that gay marriage and polygamy should both be legal for consenting adults. One doesn’t lead to the other. They both should be legal as a matter of liberty for adults.

But no, saying that this necessarily will lead to people marrying their pet turtles is exactly the same logic as saying that denying a woman the right to an abortion will lead to her being denied the right to choose who she marries, or the right to have an education. Exactly the same.

Intellectually bankrupt gibberish.

1) The majority isn't always right. In Nazi Germany, most of the population favored the Final Solution. I am NOT comparing you to a Nazi, just pointing out the utter falsehood in DeYoung's first point.

2) Sorry, there is only one word to describe this second point. Utter bullshit. Sorry, that's two words. "Rubbing against the grain of the universe?" Says who? Subjective opinion. Why should DeYoung or Todd's theological beliefs determine how other people commit to each other? If you want to live in a society based on primitive theocracy, there's always Iran for you, guys.

3) Marriage has meant different things throughout history. In many. many cases it's just meant the brutal subjugation of women. In other historical contexts real marriage has been confined to people within one's own race or caste. Even if marriage only ever meant specifically one thing throughout history, why would THAT be a reason not to change it? History becomes your God.

4) What garbled nonsense. This point rests on a theological interpretation and nothing else. Again, why should I accept your theological viewpoints - which I consider no more believable than Scientology- being codified into law? You want a theocracy? Again, Iran, Afghanistan are there for you to enjoy.

5) Again, nonsense. The tired old slippery slope. Allowing adults to commit to each other in marriage does NOT mean a move towards people being able to marry their puppies. That is just a stupid argument. Stupid and fundamentally dishonest.

The fact is, the arguments given against gay marriage (especially #5, above) rest on crackpot theological beliefs. Even if the theological beliefs were not unfounded, irrational poppycock, there would STILL be no moral right to forbid gay marriage.

You can't reject gay marriage for any reason other than theological beliefs. And theological beliefs can never be the basis of laws in a free country.

Todd, you are against freedom. Pure and simple.