I would like to point out the absurdity of this statement. Climategate has led to the revelation of a lot more than just evidence of hiding and manipulating data. But even then, this strategy is used to brush off something significant by dismissing it before it can be mentioned.

If we were debating whether you need to put a cake in an oven in order to bake it, this would be like saying, "You aren't allowed to use the 1 million chefs around the world as witnesses, that's just silly."

Climategate has had many revelations, especially for the general public and the world in general about the deceit that has gone behind AGW (more recently called Climate Change).

Heron pointed out that Phil Jones doesn't believe there is a consensus, not that he doesn't believe global warming. Nice job not reading what he was saying.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

Raw data deleted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177230/New-errors-in-IPCC-climate-change-report.html

Documented errors in the ever popular IPCC report, simple one's that would've been avoided if good science had been used.

http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/test/

CRU refuses to hand over data. I don't CARE if they felt it was a burden, they refused to hand it over even under the act.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/689

Science Magazine used a photoshopped photo to "illustrate their point", but due to their lack of research for anything valid they found out it was photoshopped and later replaced it.

Phil Jones says there's no consensus. We learned from the e-mails that peer reviewed literature was being manipulated. Roy Spencer, former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA (among other credentials that are amazing but less related), also believes that AGW is false (see his new book "The Great Global Warming Blunder").

30,000 Scientists disagree with global warming, and are (somewhat silly but significant anyways) trying to sue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

When the White House was asked about this, their response was "The debate is over".

No, the debate is not over. Yes, there are examples of HIDING, MANIPULATING, or using BAD SCIENCE with AGW.

So, I'm interested where Blizzard said they would work on sending private workable copies to people who can't have internet. That seems like a lot of effort for the smallest percentage of their market that could possibly exist (no source, just speculating, it's probably up there with fat hermaphrodites with a flog of seagulls haircut and only one nostril).

It'd be easier just to allow open LAN play than make that kind of effort for people. Is there an authentication process to verify you don't have internet? Do they travel to your house? Do they check your checking/credit card accounts for payments to an ISP? I mean, this is possibly the strangest deployment of a game that I've ever heard of.

Have a great day. :)

Volunteering information about underwear is different than walking up to someone and asking about their underwear. In any workplace environment today you would be INSTANTLY fired for sexual harassment when it was reported and verified. No qualms about it? Yeah right. Get a reality check.

You show your ignorance and obliviousness by your statements. A person claiming to be a member of the church and having experienced these things would know that you aren't required to always have them on, 100% of the time, even when you're in the shower. You friend, like most ex-Mormons, is stupid and spreads things he knows to be lies. That, or either he or you are liars -- very likely, and you don't have a friend because you've made it clear that you don't know what you are talking about.

Persecution complex? Have you had the cops escort you out of a city because you were exercising your freedom of speech and religion? When confronted about it, the cops had to let us back into the town. Have you ever been threatened by a man holding a log, with a gun at his fingertips, because of your beliefs? I've had trash thrown at me, insults yelled from cars, and ACTUAL occurrences (most homosexuals live in "fear" of these things happening, and yet I experienced them).

Mormons were mistreated, and continue to be mistreated. In what way was it right for the homosexuals to break into LDS churches and spray paint and damage them? In what way was it okay for them to call black people "niggers" as a form of retaliation for being called "fags" (which the LDS church has never done)? In what ways was it alright to spray paint the walls surrounding the temple buildings? In what ways is it right to lie and manipulate facts to their followers to get more support?

This argument holds no ground in light of the Catholic adoption agencies who were required to shut down or give children to homosexual couples. They opted to shut down, because adoption is a STATE law not protected by the constitution in religious matters.

This same line of thinking could be applied to marriage, so yes it could happen. It already has. It will continue to do so.

I can claim the religious high ground. I can completely and utterly support a law on a religious basis alone. I morally (all laws are moral) believe that it is wrong.

The same thing happened with consented suicide. It was determined that it was wrong. Even though /both/ adults consented to it, it was decided to be wrong. Suicide is decided to be wrong. Yet you can really only consider these wrong from a moral perspective. These examples, in the same essence of homosexuals, do not effect other people except perhaps emotionally. They chose in and of themselves to participate at no harm to anyone else. Abortion laws follow the same line of thinking.

As a Summary:

1. I agree that homosexuals should be afforded the same privileges as heterosexual couples. This does not have to be done through re-defining marriage.

2. You still refuse to cite anything that says marriage is a right.

3. When confronted with the fact that the tax exempt law does not render a corporation unable to push legal legislation, you ignored it and moved in instead of accepting that homosexuals are wrong, and have been wrong, because they haven't read the law themselves.

4. You refuse to accept that religions and religious people are allowed to vote how they feel on a matter based on a moral perspective.

A clever skeptic who stole records, manipulated them before asking for another translation, as a device to prove Joseph was wrong even if he re-translated exactly the same again? Yeah, you really convinced me there.

The Mayans, Incans, and Aztecs all have legends of a Great White God who will visit them -- and many of their descendants have stories and beliefs that it occurred. Many Native American tribes also have similar legends but you choose to be ignorant of that. Apparently they aren't "people" since you refer to them as "no one".

No official doctrine has said that the "Red Man" is cursed and a lesser person for any reason at all. Cite your source please. Individual people can be cursed for various reasons, that have nothing to do with skin color.

Many people believe that Christ's church was a cult and that it was becoming a huge legal and political hassle, and they were persecuted for it just as Mormon's are and were.

Your whole argument only works if marriage is a RIGHT and not a privilege. You can't argue that we are taking away your freedom when it's a privilege and not a right. In the end, you are still working under the assumption that in any circumstance, everyone should be allowed to marry. That's just not the case. This is the equivalent of arguing that a driver's license is a right, when certain people are restricted from getting one. It's not protected in the constitution and it's not a RIGHT. Cite where it's a right, you have yet to do so. Also, you fail to recognize that changing the law would require significant change for churches. State law can supercede religion and therein lies the problem. Churches would be forced, against their religion, to perform marriages of homosexuals or NOT PERFORM THEM AT ALL. Changing the definition of marriage would affect their rights. I agree with you that there could be a system to protect religion and homosexual civil unions, but re-defining marriage alone does not accomplish this.

You are stating one thing and then arguing another. YOU CAN PUSH LEGISLATION AND BE A TAX EXEMPT CORPORATION! IT SAYS IN THE LAW ITSELF. You are limited in the amount of funds and effort you put into it, not which laws you are allowed to push for. Therefore the LDS Church broke no laws, and the homosexuals fail to inform their people that the law has not been broken and continues to attack the church on a basis that they themselves claimed was not their purpose for Proposition 8. And no, I wouldn't be fine with the country changing it's mind, because I disagree with it. But if it changed it would be necessary for me to comply with it. You are allowed differing opinions. However, since it's not a RIGHT -- key word here -- that means the state must define what it is and WHAT REQUIREMENTS must be made to qualify for it. If it were a RIGHT then the state could NOT pass laws governing this.

I love when people resort to sexual harassment. If you do a brief study of the Bible you'll find that the "magic underwear" is hardly magic, and is a symbol that is consistent with scripture. The Hebrew word that translates into "skins" that Adam and Eve wore also stands for "under garments". Stop talking about peoples underwear in a public setting, I can't imagine anything more rude. Mormon theology is consistent with scripture whatever you might want to think about it. If I wanted to sit around and destroy 'other' Christians it would be too simple to do so.

Because it's the current law. You don't have to come up with "logical" reasons except that the democracy has determined it to be so. If you want to be convincing, you can add logical sense to it but that doesn't mean they are incapable of doing so. This is the same as whether illegal immigrants should be allowed drivers licenses or not. They are fully capable of driving, and some believe they should be allowed to and some don't believe it. Yet the LAW SAYS THEY CAN NOT. Marriage at the moment legally entails that a man and a woman be required to be married. Gays can fulfill this requirement if they wish to be married - but otherwise they are not fulfilling the law. Therefore, my driver's license comparison is not spurious. What this means that the logic for a religion to support marriage as defined, in the state, between man and a woman is as legitimate as any other concern revolving around it. You saying that religion can't be involved (which it can) is saying that religious persons can not vote based on a religious conviction. This is not true. Actually if you read that IRS law it says that institutions CAN participate in advocating positions. However they are limited on the amount of effort they can put into it. Read the law yourself before you go spouting off the same ridiculous arguments that have been heard for months. :)

First of all, all religious people are allowed to participate in all definitions of state or national law. To argue that a person, because they are religious, can not help define is to remove their freedom of speech. This is the voter intimidation tactic that homosexuals have been employing. Because a topic isn't specifically religious does not determine whether religion can be involved or not. Any person part of the democracy (who haven't had their rights removed and are of age) is allowed to participate in defining the law. No one excluded, whether religious, homosexual, stupid, etc. Marriage is a privilege that everyone is allowed to participate in, assuming they fulfill specific duties. Drivers licenses are the same thing. The people who issue drivers licenses aren't labeled as bigots or hateful. Everyone has to fit to their definition and it's only reserved for "certain people." Having a drivers license has certain advantages that are available to all, supposing they fit the requirements for that state law.

This is not constitutional. Marriage is a state defined institution therefore it overrules what you've said. It's the same reason that polygamous and incest even within the realms of religion are overruled by state laws. Please cite where marriage is a right.