As for registration and crime reduction; if I buy a gun, I register it. Not becasue I want to reduce gun crime, but becasue it is my responsibility to as an adult, and my obligation to my neighbour... who might not even want guns to exist himself.
So Spider-Man choosing to register would stop Erbert the pervert from molesting children? Furthermore, has the registration of guns stopped the usage of guns in criminal activity? Are they not still used for murder and other criminal activities? Lets also say that a superhero registers, out of respect for those neighbors who don't want superheroes to exist. They'll still be doing the exact same activities they were doing before. How does that change anything? Actually, the registration simply makes authorized vigilanteism legal, does it not?

Well, the first step would be establishing who the real Spiderman is. If we don't have that then its anyone's best guess. Maybe Peter Parker was testifying in court at the time of the incident. Unfortunately, no one knows that Peter Parker is Spiderman, most of all the courts, so it sucks to be Parker and rocks to be a criminal in a Spidey costume.
So, the government is able to recognize Parker as a result of a complex identification process. This stops the molestor or criminal from wearing the Spidey costume how? If a criminal is caught perpetrating a crime, it doesn't really matter whether or not he is the real Spider-Man is in the first place.

I don't know; how does having ID make things any better in terms of, ohh, I dunno, law enforcement? Or military personel? Don't you think it is a good idea that these people have ID's to prove who they are and what they claim to be, and which place them within a loop of accountability if something goes awry ... despite the chance of forgery? Or would you prefer an anonymous "police force", with no ID, no training, that couldn't be held accountable, and that wore a mask, and targetted "criminals" on their own whim?
I'm talking about practical application. What purpose does the ID actually serve? When are you going to use this ID to prove that you are an authorized vigilante? Pop out the card in the middle of a fight with Dr. Doom, "Don't worry citizens, I'm authorized to do this." I'm pretty sure that at that point the cits don't care too much. Military personel also have IDs for specific purposes, namely access to bases and those resources restricted from normal commoners. Therefore that ID serves a purpose. Having an ID serves no clear purpose to me, for the superheroes, other than for providing a false sense of security.

the Golden Age has passed and its time to grow up.

Yes, they do have to reveal their identities and precisely when they are assuming a heightened degree of societal responsibility and authority. Especially then.
Why? What practical difference does it make? The people don't care the names of the individuals protecting them. I don't know the name of the policemen that serve me. Why does a name, an identity, matter to the casual observer?

Well, Iron Man stated that anyone acting in FLAGRANT disregard for the act would be hunted down, so it would appear to be the case. So, yeah, even here in BC it might not be a good idea to walk up to the local narcotics officer, sparking up dubbies, and showing off all your small quantity stash. Might be a bad idea. They might deport you to the States or something. But unless you're doing that, or destroying houses and driving down property value with grow-ops, you're probably pretty safe engaging in recreational use.
Whether or not they are flagarantly disregarding the act or not doesn't change the fact that they would still be guilty of a crime. Those who commit crimes within the public eye are no guiltier than those who do it in the safe comfort of a back alley or their homes. So the Act is still slamming down a damning sentence upon innocents based on circumstances which they can't deny.

No, I would rather be at the whim of a government that I more-or-less
support. I don't have to agree with every particular to still support my country. And some of the things that I disagree with might be dozey's, and I accept that as the price of doing business and making this way of life work.
You're still working under the pretense that the majority of the policies that are in effect are still to your general benefit, hence the purpose of the social contract in its purest form. However, for these individuals, society has now deprived them of their most basic human rights, and they no longer feel that the government is at all supportable. If a government that you supported decided that a minority was a threat and thus encarcerated them, would you continue to support them? What if you were a member of that minority? The laws of the country you've supported have turned on you and have threatened your life and liberty, are you still supporting them then?

that there are more than enough willing combatants that no one has to be forced into service.
And if there are none? Also, that still doesn't solve your problem of walking nuclear bombs and what they're doing.

Of course, the worst case has to be the only way it could possibly go. I however beg to differ. I won't go that way. As a matter of quick response the orgnaization will chose those best trained and experienced, and they will bare the brunt of the consequences for any hastily made decisions ... as an inevitable fact of registration.
But that would be denying the very nature of the act. The act was created in order to make these heroes responsible for their actions. To blame them for errors. That is the very purpose of all of this. SHIELD itself will not take the blame, the same as it is in the real world. When a cop screws up, no one begins to question the validity of the police force, and whether or not the police department itself should be held responsible. When there is an error by a soldier in battle, that soldier is held accountable, not the miltary itself, as is policy pretty much throughout the world. You don't often indicte organizations, particularly those that you are dependant upon to serve and protect you. Also, with the debated international status of the organization, who has the authority to charge SHIELD with anything?

And hey, I WANT the partially invulenrable guy that can shoot lasers from his eyes working the graveyard shift in my terd-hole location 7/11. If the people at Mac's don't, ??????
What?

In the end I suppose that this whole discussion is entirely pointless, as I'm quite resolute in my stance, and you're obviously quite firm in yours, but I would like to say that I appreciate the fact that you're willing to continue this discussion despite the fact that we're not going to come to an actual agreement or even resolution. I've certainly come to a better understanding of my actual stance and the reasons behind my opinions, much better than I had when we began. Thanks.

I suppose that also the limited ability of the medium to give us all of the necesarry information will also continue to hinder us, as even with as much detail as they can give us, it'll never be quite as full as the real thing. Still, is anyone else frustrated by the fact that we still don't have enough information to really go on?

Edit: Haha! Great to hear that you appreciate the discussion as well. Missed your post before I posted. It really is great to have such a dedicated discussion... on other boards *cough*theforce.net*cough* most of the times when we get into really good deep developed discussions, one side just cops out and decides that by not talking about it they are taking the higher ground. I'm glad we don't have that same attitude here.