Isn't that abit harsh? i mean... imo its wrong, but to each his ... or her own, then again if it is a Rule then she should have followed it, no questions asked.

Well, "I am the Lord your God, You shall have no other gods before me, you shall not make for yourself an idol" or "You shall not make wrongfull use of the name of your God" or "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy" do seem pretty religious to me :P

They might not be exclusive to a single "church" (the Jews group them a bit different as far as I know, but I don't think it's much of a concern) but to a subset of religions, whiele there are still many beliefs (even if most less popular) that don't follow them.

And really, base of criminal laws? They're just too bare-bones, and they don't even resemble a code like Hamurabi's did or anything. Why not have Hamurabi's one there? Also, O don't think it would be such a problem if they used only commandments 4 to 9*. Some people would still complain about the surce and all, but still.

The thing with Church-State separation is not exclusive to church, it means the separation of state and religion. A good subset of american people does not believe on any religion of the subset that holds the commandments as true or sacred, I'd expect some of them to be unconfortable with it.

*But not 10. I mean, come on, disobeying the 10th Commandment is pretty much what moves the economy :P

wonder what would happen if you put, "asexual from way back."
Can they still discriminate?

Ok, but if it's the historical reference that's important, why the ten commandments, or why only them? The historical side may be important but still, I find it hard to believe it's not largely influenced by religion. Maybe it's kind of like swearing on the bibble.

My point about them being "bare-bones" was that there are a few other codes or laws that have influenced "our" (I'm not american, but still, our laws kind of come from the same source, basically) laws more, or more directly, than the 10 commandments.

I mean, I'm obviously not offended by them being there (not even american after all) but I can see how some people could think it's out of place. They may even be wrong, or maybe (I don't know) some of them may make it into something much bigger than it is, but the point I was making was that they have reasons to believe they shouldn't be there, and they complain because of this, but not because they hate on or are unconfortable with the Commandments themselfs or the people that believe in those commandments, so it's different.

About the Founding Fathers, as far as I know (and I don't know that far, so yeah :P), they intended to separete religion and state, didn't they. Now, yeah, I get your point, there are historical reasons to have the commandments there.

I'd argue it's still kind of promoting or "officializing" a religion, which people with different beliefs (be it atheists or even other religious people) really use to dislike.

Then again, let's say it's exactly the same thing: Some people are offended by that, so some people are bound to be offended by the word "lesbian". Well, does Live ban any mention to religion? And, if some people are offended by such little things, I'm sure some are offended by war, too. Or by other simple word's like "Hell" or "genocide". You can go really far and make a big list of things that at least (or even more, in my opinion) plausible to offend people as "lesbian". Should every one of them be banned?

I don't understand what the deal is... In a sense, it's not a dating service, so, there's no reason to put down your sexual orientation. However, if someone does, who cares. As long as they're not hitting on other members, it shouldn't be a problem. So, if someone puts in their profile "I'm straight" I guess they should be banned too... But, you see how much sense that makes? Homosexuals think that just because they like the same gender, they're special (not all). But, it's a sexual orientation... it shouldn't matter anymore than someone saying "I like 52 inch HDTVs" You never hear straight people talking about how "proud" they are to be straight. I mean, unless someone asks, it never comes up...

But, still, microsoft is wrong for that, and they're still wrong for adding something like that in a user agreement.

Your argument if flawed too.  Why should her perversion trump Microsoft's right to moderate whats on their network?

But what if your bio reads even something tame like "I'm a 23 years old Muslim trying to change this world", or anything like that, the possibilities are literally endless, and I'm sure some people would be offended.

There are thousands of topics that could be alluded to, there are millions of points of view that will be in conflict with others. Let's say you have anything about politics in there, that's sure to offend some people.

Some people are offended too easily, but it's normal for you to not like many things. Point is, you can't try to change every enviroment because of that, it would be pointless to change Live. If an adult (remember, we're talking adults since for kids their parents can use parental control) can't stand a different, reasonable, point of view that won't even interfere with his own life, how can he live in a society? Shielding him from something so "weak" seems pointless to me.

How bout they read the code of conduct next time???

Just read your edit.

You know, something funny about God given rights is that every other country has these rights, and they do use to have a similar "core", since our modern law has the same root, but they all have their differences too, and sometimes big differences, so you have lots of different sets of God given rights across the world.

What really matters about a set of rights is how respected they are. Now, I see some people would tend to naturally respect "God given things", but I'm not sure that the people who really should respect these will, like you pointed out.

Also, does the constituion itself actually say those rights are given by God?