Apple Brainwashes Gay Cure App from iTunes

[AngloDoom]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

For the love of Santa, can we give that argument a rest?

Every time someone, somewhere, stops somebody else from doing something, that weak argument about a specific event gets used as a one-size-fits-all argument.

I very much doubt you are about to go as far as ending your life for the sake of this Christian group to do what they want. I also doubt that you would consider a man of religion stoning his wife to death for cheating on him one of those rights to defend.

Either apply that saying to every aspect of life indiscriminately - allow people to protest outside one-another's funerals, have their own race-hate-training television programmes, allow children's programmes to instruct children in the evils of homosexuality - or just leave that ridiculously pious argument to rest.

 

[Sarge034]

Yes, homosexuality does harm society, because it is a deliberate misuse of the power to create children. This does not mean that it is "the end of the world as we know it" kind of harm. It just makes things worse off than they need to be.

How does the "deliberate misuse of the power to create children" harm society? Most straight people, myself included, masterbate. Is that not a "deliberate misuse of the power to create children"? How does masterbation not make "things worse off than they need to be" and homosexuality does make "things worse off than they need to be"?

If this comes down to a religious argument, does the bible not say in Matthew 7:1, "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
http://biblebrowser.com/matthew/7-1.htm

I'm agnostic and I knew that.

Now for the topic of marriage, that gets complicated. Marriage is by definition a "church thing" so we can not make the church allow homosexuals to get married. A civil marriage on the other hand is done by the goverment and the church has nothing to do with it. So I don't see why they can't have a civil marriage.

 

[Sarge034]

Ah yes. Apple. How I loathe thee.

'Free speech! (So long as we like it!)' - the Apple mantra.

I don't think there's anything wrong with this app. If you don't like it, don't use it. I'm not saying I agree with it. In fact, I disagree with it. But people should have the right to believe what they want.

So if in my religion it is right for me to come and assault you violently, insult your honor in public broadcast or break every law there is about equality by discriminating your rights (Denying service because you are X, sacking you from your jib because you are X, etc...)

You would be OK with this?

And what planet are you posting that message from? It seems, wherever you are, assaulting someone is the same as communicating a message to other people who want to hear it.

I'd leave that planet if I were you.

Now why would straight people want an app that "cures gay"? I'm straight, and I don't want it. This was obviously not "a message to other people who want to hear it". This was an app that was intended to make homosexuals feel they are in the wrong. If the app was named something less imflamitory and it's sole purpose was to provide guideance to homosexuals trying to find themselves with "god's help" then this would be ok. However, it came across as very degrading and "convert or die and burn in hell" like.

 

[deleted_by_strongbad]

I think apple should not have classified it as not containing offensive material, that is just short sighted.

I think the thought behind the app is pretty stupid and leads to possible ethical issues.

I think the guy has a right to proclaim his views, however mad they may be. If he wants to host/distribute the app himself he has the right to.

I know the Apple app-store is a venue for selling software by a private company. Discussions of free speech don't really come into play, Apple chooses what it wants to sell and what it doesn't, it denies countless apps on a daily basis, and as a company it is their right to do so. Apple just showed its incompetence by completely green lighting it, and then pulling it. My guess is they figured they could make a buck or two off of it before controversy set in, and then they could pull it once it did and probably not lose a single customer in the process, which is all pretty lame but completely par for the course with those guys.

 

[AngloDoom]

Matter can form single-celled organisms, but it cannot do it by itself. What I am saying is that matter does not have the intelligence to form itself into a life form. Situations do not change anything. It is fundamentally impossible for matter to go from non-living to living, no matter how well you attune the environment. "Spontaneous generation" has been scientifically proven to be false.

There is no such thing as a positive chance mutation my friend. All mutation experiments done by scientists have shown that exposure to radiation only creates bad dysfunctional mutations, crippling disabilities in organisms. Why is this? Because DNA carries information. Putting in random static to information never "improves" it, only destroys it.

Sorry to jump into the argument here but:

Of course matter doesn't choose to do anything. Proteins bonding at random in the pool of a hot-spring supposedly can, however, create simple DNA through millions of random combinations that just happen to work together. No-one is arguing that proteins got bored and started hanging out together to form lions. Would you mind if you posted the study that disproved this idea you've heard of?

Also, mutation occurs all the time. You're forgetting that mutation isn't just cancerous lobes and radiation. For example, my hair is darker than my parents. If, for whatever reason, people were getting killed left-right-and-centre for being ginger and blonde, no-one is arguing that people would suddenly turn brunette out of choice, but that there would be a lot more people around with dark hair to mate and produce dark-haired individuals. I also come from a family who are all quite flexible and tall, so we have a group of individuals forming a genetic line that makes them differ from, say, my neighbours who are short and less flexible.

 

[Grey_Wolf_Leader]

No it is not. Because the Apostles of Christ clarified that the basic laws regarding Sexuality still stood. (See Romans 1:27) The execution of moral laws may change, but their basic command that "Thou shall not" still stands.

The strict "thou shalt not" still only covers adultery, and now you're picking and choosing again. So now it's only things that God/Jesus said, but only in the new testament of the Bible, but you also have to count the words of all of the apostles? Also, you're now applying a moral authority to the apostles which they most certainly do not have. If God/Jesus didn't say it, it didn't come from the only source that you can possibly argue as having moral authority.

I think part of the problem is that these scriptures you quote are all taken out of context. When you pull one part of the scripture in Ephesians, the one that says "Wives, submit to your husbands", and do not include the male directing counterpart, of course it sounds bad.

No, even with "husbands, love your wives" it still sounds fucking awful. Entrenched patriarchy is a huge problem in our society and this kind of Biblical nonsense is part of it.

Also, this is yet another example of something Christians take as a maxim - but it's not part of the ten commandments, it's in the old testament (which if anything puts it in the "old bad law for dumb people" section of things), it wasn't said by Jesus/God, it wasn't said by an apostle... but apparently it survived the whole "no more old law" thing, because . Feel free to give me some other reason why you're allowed to cherry-pick this command into your creed but not others, though.

These laws applied specifically to those who were born Israeli. These would be individuals taught from a very young age the religion of his people, and therefore would be very well aware that as a member God's covenant people, he had a moral obligation to remain faithful. If he broke the covenant, he knew full well the consequences. People who were not Israeli were not subject to these laws, remember, they were not citizens of the Israeli government.
In ancient times, part of the worship of other "Gods" involved rituals to fertility deities that the Israelites had to deal with on a daily basis from their neighbors in Canaan. These were not merely your average prayers or festivals. Among the most heinous example of their rituals included pagan priests and priestesses having unlawful sex, and then sacrificing the children born from these rituals to please the gods and ensure another year of bountiful harvests. This is part of why the Lord was so vengeful against the pagans. They were sacrificing children to false gods, and that's enough to get anyone's blood boiling.

It absolutely doesn't matter if people knew the consequences, who they applied to, or what the context was. The law still commands the society to do that which is absolutely, without question, wrong. Stoning someone for adultery - for being raped, even - is wrong regardless of the society, or the upbringing, or who said it, or when. I don't think you can get around that one. There is no argument you can possibly bring up that will make me say "you know what, I guess that ***** did deserve it". Ergo, god commanded people in the old testament to do things that are without question morally detestable, ergo, I am completely in awe that you can consider the bible a moral authority.

Stopping people from killing kids - good! Killing them - still bad! Also, it'd be great and much more salient if it said "hey, stop those pagans sacrifice kids", but it doesn't. It says "kill anyone who believes differently". Which is, again, wrong.

You know quite well what the context of my using the "thou shall" word. I mean that it is something taboo you should not do. Picking and choosing what? You need to tell me what you mean there.

The apostles do have moral authority because they are men called of God and communicate with him as the prophets of old did. They are "the Lord's Mouthpiece". They speak with his permission and authority. That is what prophets and apostles do.

You also seem to think that any form of male leadership is inherently evil. As if somehow it is the institution of leadership and not the individuals who abuse the position of power that is at fault. I hold people accountable for what they do, not the the position they hold itself. Just because there is a Patriarchy, doesn't mean that it is inherently wrong. The rights of women to vote and make decisions with their husbands, so long as the woman's desires are not infringed, as well as all the other abilities of women (to get and education or work, or even be leaders themselves) are totally compatible with men in leadership.

You want another reason? Very well, "Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?" ~Alma 39:5

Sexual sins are among the worst because they concern the creation of bodies made in the Lord's image. Now I nor any other Christian are interested in killing people for sexual sins, but this is a very important fact of why the Lord holds sex so sacred.

You don't seem to understand that one's Sexuality is sacred. The idea here behind these laws is that a person who is being raped should fight tooth and nail to get away. Why would you not do that? This command is most odd because the vast majority of rape victims do their best to get away and make a scene when someone is attacking them.

Someone who commits adultery is committed one of the worst sins possible, which is why it has a strict punishment. Adulterers are breaking a (or two) marital vows to be faithful to another, they were in this time breaking a legal contract, and that carried the death penalty. I know sex is no big deal to you, but to the Lord, it is a very big deal. It is a fundamental and essential part of how his Spirit Children get to this world, and so he defends it most vigorously.

The law did not say, "anyone", it said "those among you", as in, fellow Israelis.

Oh, and by the way, what about wars of defense? What about the death penalty for murder? Men who slay innocent people deliberately have forfeited their right to live, and justice dictates an appropriate punishment for the crime.

 

[Grey_Wolf_Leader]

Matter can form single-celled organisms, but it cannot do it by itself. What I am saying is that matter does not have the intelligence to form itself into a life form. Situations do not change anything. It is fundamentally impossible for matter to go from non-living to living, no matter how well you attune the environment. "Spontaneous generation" has been scientifically proven to be false.

There is no such thing as a positive chance mutation my friend. All mutation experiments done by scientists have shown that exposure to radiation only creates bad dysfunctional mutations, crippling disabilities in organisms. Why is this? Because DNA carries information. Putting in random static to information never "improves" it, only destroys it.

Sorry to jump into the argument here but:

Of course matter doesn't choose to do anything. Proteins bonding at random in the pool of a hot-spring supposedly can, however, create simple DNA through millions of random combinations that just happen to work together. No-one is arguing that proteins got bored and started hanging out together to form lions. Would you mind if you posted the study that disproved this idea you've heard of?

Also, mutation occurs all the time. You're forgetting that mutation isn't just cancerous lobes and radiation. For example, my hair is darker than my parents. If, for whatever reason, people were getting killed left-right-and-centre for being ginger and blonde, no-one is arguing that people would suddenly turn brunette out of choice, but that there would be a lot more people around with dark hair to mate and produce dark-haired individuals. I also come from a family who are all quite flexible and tall, so we have a group of individuals forming a genetic line that makes them differ from, say, my neighbours who are short and less flexible.

Do you have any idea how complex even a single celled organism is? The most simple of organisms require hundreds of "nano-machines" reading the structure of DNA, creating RNA, reading that RNA, structuring proteins according to the instructions on the RNA, carrying the protein to the proper place in the cell where it can be used to build the cell or perform another function. Or how hard it is to get molecule to arrange themselves just right in three dimensions.
Your hair is likely darker because your parents both carried a recessive "darker" gene that you happen to inherit. It wasn't created, it is just now being expressed in you.

 

[Sarge034]

Now why would straight people want an app that "cures gay"? I'm straight, and I don't want it. This was obviously not "a message to other people who want to hear it".

*facepalm* -_____-

People who want to hear it will hear it. You know, 'cause no one is forcing you to download it.

Seemed obvious to me. Sad.

Of everything in my post and you pick on this?

That feels like a win, better do it again.

Every time you reply and try to dodge the points I made I am just going to reply with the entire post again. If you want to get past this, discuss the points or don't reply to me.

Yes, homosexuality does harm society, because it is a deliberate misuse of the power to create children. This does not mean that it is "the end of the world as we know it" kind of harm. It just makes things worse off than they need to be.

How does the "deliberate misuse of the power to create children" harm society? Most straight people, myself included, masterbate. Is that not a "deliberate misuse of the power to create children"? How does masterbation not make "things worse off than they need to be" and homosexuality does make "things worse off than they need to be"?

If this comes down to a religious argument, does the bible not say in Matthew 7:1, "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
http://biblebrowser.com/matthew/7-1.htm

I'm agnostic and I knew that.

Now for the topic of marriage, that gets complicated. Marriage is by definition a "church thing" so we can not make the church allow homosexuals to get married. A civil marriage on the other hand is done by the goverment and the church has nothing to do with it. So I don't see why they can't have a civil marriage.

 

[Legion]

Also, sexual pleasure is a privilege. If reproduction was a right, which it isn't, reproduction is still more important than the orgasm. So you cannot, I repeat cannot equate homosexuality to race. You can't stop being black, but sexuality can be changed either way by societal and familial pressures. And since sexuality is not a right, I simply can avoid sex, be it hetero or homo or auto(masturbation). It's oh so fascinating that you equate homosexuality as a taboo to the Holocaust as well. I guess this IS a society where absolutely everything we want is somehow a right, and taboos are the height of fascism. How about the right to sex with whomever I choose whenever I want it? Even if it's in my neighbor's house or if it's his wife? Do I still have that right if the other person doesn't want it? Why not? I desire it, so it's my right.

Sexual pleasure may be a privilege, but sexual desire is not. A homosexual person who dies a virgin is still a homosexual, the fact that they desire the same sex is enough for some people to condemn them regardless of whether or not they at upon it.

You are also completely ignoring the main point I made. If you had sex in someone else's house without them knowing/wanting you to do it then you are infringing on their rights, if you sleep with someone else's partner then you are hurting that partner.

Two homosexual people sleeping together, with consent, are not harming anybody by default.

Let's see if I can open up an actual dialogue here without starting a flame war...

If God didn't want homosexual people why did he create them? He is all powerful and all knowing, and so you honestly cannot argue that it wasn't intentional. You can try and say that he did it to "test" people but that doesn't make sense, because if he is all knowing then he would know that not everyone would pass, and yet he created them anyway, which puts the blame squarely on him not the people involved.

If God is all knowing and all powerful then the concept of free will cannot exist. Which means we cannot sin, which means that we cannot be blamed for what we do.

 

[Lyri]

"Niggers" is a derogatory term. Gay however, is not.

Are you ignoring the context it was used in for a reason here or are you just that ignorant?
It was a blatant foul.

Under your previous rule we could change the prior example to "Cure for the Black man" and it would be sunshine and lollipops for all.
It would still be a hateful app but because the name removes an offensive word, it means I could promote it, right?

Hint: The answer is no.

 

[Sarge034]

Now why would straight people want an app that "cures gay"? I'm straight, and I don't want it. This was obviously not "a message to other people who want to hear it".

*facepalm* -_____-

People who want to hear it will hear it. You know, 'cause no one is forcing you to download it.

Seemed obvious to me. Sad.

Of everything in my post and you pick on this?

Pick on? No.

Point out illogic? Yes.

See, it's a (kinda) free world and I've the right to voice (type) your fallacies.

If one wishes to hear the 'gays need to be cured' message, go right on ahead. What are you afraid of? If they are right, more people know the good truth.

Freedom is a two way street, sweetie.

You're welcome.

Freedom is a two way street until it harms others. I assume they found this app as insulting and degrading as I would find a "cure straight" app.

So, if that is the only thing you have a problem with it is not in the post. Also this is far from a free world, free country maybe, but not a free world.

I say again respond to the post or don't respond. You might want to look at the second section because I think that would apply more to you. As you belive this to be "the good truth".

Yes, homosexuality does harm society, because it is a deliberate misuse of the power to create children. This does not mean that it is "the end of the world as we know it" kind of harm. It just makes things worse off than they need to be.

How does the "deliberate misuse of the power to create children" harm society? Most straight people, myself included, masterbate. Is that not a "deliberate misuse of the power to create children"? How does masterbation not make "things worse off than they need to be" and homosexuality does make "things worse off than they need to be"?

If this comes down to a religious argument, does the bible not say in Matthew 7:1, "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
http://biblebrowser.com/matthew/7-1.htm

I'm agnostic and I knew that.

Now for the topic of marriage, that gets complicated. Marriage is by definition a "church thing" so we can not make the church allow homosexuals to get married. A civil marriage on the other hand is done by the goverment and the church has nothing to do with it. So I don't see why they can't have a civil marriage.

 

[tharglet]

I see quite a few people saying "this app should stay". The app store is NOT 'free speech central', and quite categorically has rules of what can/cannot be uploaded. Afaik they have rules that if an app is considered offensive they can pull it.
I don't have any iProducts... but I think you can install stuff not through the app store? If so, I don't feel as if Apple are obliged to host it - they can offer it to the public through their own site, no?

I believe that Apple has the right to not host content they do not approve of, but should allow anyone to install anything, if they really, really want to (which is my main beef with Apple - have your walled garden if you must, but allow users to break away at their own risk).

 

[moretimethansense]

I'm all for freedom of speech and all but this clearly violated the Appstore's guidlines.
Also whoever rated this 4+ needs to be fired badly.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

THIS I APPROVE!
"Cured" my ass! That type of ignorance is the REAL disease.

This.

Who is anyone to claim freedom of speech just so they can hate on people who don't hate them?

 

[RobCoxxy]

He can fuck off talking about equal representation.
If you want equal representation you can let the gays continue with their fruity ways unobstructed and un-"cured", thanks, you dick.

 

[Snotnarok]

Doesn't surprise me Steve Jobbs/Apple removed the ability to have a donate app for charity, the apps were removed till they had it so you had to hit a button that brought up the browser and the webpage then the person could donate manually through the web page.