Seems to me like China has not "screwed over" Google in any way. An organized attack fails to penetrate Gmail, and gets e-mails from other third party sources for select individuals.

I'm certainly an advocate of freedom of speech, but branding China as "evil" is some serious overstatement. It's a country that has historically struggled with providing basic necessities and a reasonable standard of living to its ridiculously huge number of people.

It shouldn't be a surprise that China, preoccupied more with material matters than information, has lagged in catching on to the importance of intellectual property and freedom of speech. Google's actions are a good thing for both Google and China - they're peacefully protesting China's harmful policies in a way that actually may make a difference.

By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if the CIA did some similar hacking operations on suspected terrorists in violation with freedom-of-whatever laws. They probably just get caught less.

Homosexuals aren't asking you to change your religion, they're asking you to change your laws. Separate in this country, remember? (or supposed to be, at least) And a law that allows homosexuals to get married is not "catering" to them, it's providing the equality that you claim is already present for "all people at the fundamental level as set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights".

Yes, I'm saying that your religion/beliefs/faith shouldn't have an effect on someone else's basic rights. If your beliefs force you to deprive others of rights that all people are supposed to have, then your beliefs are illegal. If you believe that you should be able to get married, which is a LEGAL not RELIGIOUS right, then so can anyone else regardless of their sexuality. Ex. If my religion, hypothetically, believes that people with AIDS are evil and should be segregated, that doesn't allow me to segregate them because that would infringe their rights. So yes, in this case your beliefs don't matter for shit, deal with it, that's what tolerance means. It means that you practice your religion/beliefs in your own life and allow others to practice their different religions/beliefs in their lives.

Wrong. Marriage was created originally as a religious institution. Through the laws passed by our country, it has come to have social, financial, and economic values that transcend the original religious underpinnings. It doesn't belong exclusively to Christianity or any other religion, not anymore. Just look at tax and marital law; are all of those laws based on religion?

Your religious foundations aren't getting changed. You can still get married in all the same ways with all the same rights, whether or not gays do. Again you are trying to redefine tolerance as total obedience.

I'm really tired of hearing this misguided argument. Your individual rights are generally only supported up until the point that they begin infringing on the rights of others (e.g. you have the freedom of expression to post what you want on the internet, but once child porn/stolen credit card information/military secrets become involved you have crossed into illegality.

You are using this infringement argument WRONGLY. You are claiming that homosexuals infringe on the rights of heterosexuals by wanting to get married. I challenge you to present a personal (legal) right of yours that would be under attack from homosexual marriage (and no, freedom of expression/religion do not count because you can still practice your faith just fine whether or not gays are getting married).

Your problem is that you consider "tolerance" of the Christian faith to be synonymous with "absolute obedience to it", i.e. don't do anything yourself that a devout literal-biblical Christian would not do. THAT IS NOT TOLERANCE, that is subservience! And your argument that homosexuals are being "intolerant" by wanting to get married is both ironic and moronic for this reason.

*

As to the original poster and the argument of majority vs minority, I personally think that most drug dealers are not threats to society, but some are (and the ones who are can do a lot of damage), so the police should have ample authority to act against them. The bigger problem is fixing the issues that cause demand for the drugs, though.

And Blizzard did nothing wrong. If the guy wanted to protect his online information, he shouldn't have played an online game for which he needs to (in a manner) disseminate his information. The EULA allows Blizzard to distribute this information, and he should have known that.