Apple Brainwashes Gay Cure App from iTunes

[twiceworn]

how does this stuff keep getting posted??!! isn't there a rule about intelligent posts on this site?? how many people actualy care about this??? please post me if you care so i can see if more than 2 people really give a f**k!!!

 

[Lucifron]

Not a fan of censoring this thing, ridiculous bigotry as it shows.

Is it an utterly pathetic and backwards expression of some sorry view that there could ever be anything wrong with something as utterly harmless as homosexuality? It certainly is.

Is it an expression of a scientifically unsupported and just utterly hopeless conception that ingrained character traits could even be "cured"? Yes to that as well.

The way to engage such backwards views - which aren't hard to refute and ridicule - is to let them come to the surface though, rather than remain under the slimy rock they were born from, then mercilessly tear into them with logic and the equally strong conviction that homosexuality is entirely natural and ethically unproblematic.

Only when they speak up can their words be struck down.

You are, of course, right, but the market will never do this or anything similar. It is against its nature, and I'm not certain if it should be considered to be responsible.

 

[GBlair88]

He's crying about freedom of speech when his app claims to 'cure' homosexuals?

 

[Tipsy Giant]

Is there an 'app' to cure christianity/stupidity too? I'd imagine this fellow wouldn't be very pleased if there was.

/thread

I hate it when religions discriminate against groups because of their silly beliefs.

Someone loving someone of the same sex is crazy, but a big floaty spaghetti monster, that is obviously true

 

[Arehexes]

I think Alan Chambers has every right to have his app there on App Store. He is talking about freedom of information, and that's true: he should be able to place his app there.

All he needs to do is prove that his claims work. He just needs to cure one gay person.

Anyone really, as long as we can be sure that this app can turn a homosexual person into a straight person, I've no trouble at all with it being on the app store. In fact, I'll welcome it. I'm sure that he won't mind reverse-engineering it so you can turn people gay as well, if you so desire.

I mean otherwise, he'd be trying to release an app. that would be attempting to do something that it was incapable of, and he could be sued for damages - and we wouldn't want that to happen, would we?

While I'm all for freedom of speech you have to realize that
A)Apple does have final say on whats on their store, it's a little funny how people say freedom on speech on private owned stuff. Why not complain that we can't swear on the Escapist to show our freedom of speech

B)People did petition to have it removed, and apple is mostly about how they look in the public eye.

C)It's kinda offensive to say being X is a sickness that can be cured gay or not. I mean I would be offended if you said my love of collection programming books was a sickness that needs to be cured

D)What if people started saying being hetero was a sickness would you except that?

If youe being sarcastic I am sorry I have like 8 hours of non stop programming and studying for a project today so my mind is more of less a blank...also nice avatar

 

[Delicious Anathema]

I don't see anything wrong with it, if someone wants to change, why wouldn't they?

Maybe cure isn't the right word but I don't see the fuss with it, then again I didn't see anything wrong with Michael Jackson being white. I mean, who cares?

 

[etherlance]

See, this is why I don't bother with new apps on my phone.

 

[Vrach]

For the record, I don't think that it's wrong for a church or Christian group to proselytize however it wants, but the title of the App in question made too many assumptions for it to be admissible. Whether you think homosexuality is wrong or not is up to you, but asserting that it is something which can or should be "cured" is just bollocks.

Gotta disagree on the "can" part there in the name of science considering there's already a possible discovered gene responsible for it. And even if that finding is wrong, we're chemical creatures, anything CAN be "cured" or better said changed about us, it's just a matter of finding out how. On the should however, that's a whole different topic and I agree.

That said, this app is obvious insulting bollox. Apps celebrating the LGBT culture are fine because they celebrate who someone is. This app intrudes upon someone else and who they are. That's the difference between taking a stroll in a gay parade and throwing a rock at the people strolling. But I don't think for a second that moron doesn't actually realise that.

I think we give too much power to religion. Don't get me wrong, freedom of thought is fine, you should be allowed to believe in whatever you want, silent religious people who don't push their beliefs on others and who don't use their religion as an excuse are often some of the best people you'll come across.

Freedom to be taken seriously however - why is it that we ridicule stuff like people believing in Jedi code but take religious people seriously? Surely they should be equal for believing in something? Why do we give extra rights to people who believe in fairy tales?

 

[DTWolfwood]

what apple cant just release the same statement? "We removed the Manhattan Declaration Gay Cure app from the App Store because it violates our developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people."

 

[ZombieGenesis]

Religious Zealotry is more of a disease than homosexuality.

Like... literally. It's a mental illness. Being that ignorant and dedicated to something at the expense of all other living things, how can that be in any way healthy?
If I were a petty man, I'd begin development on "Cure God" right now.

But that name has unfortunate implications, so I won't...

 

[MetreMaidPlayer]

I have gone back and forth on this issue, first taking the obvious stance of good for them, then thinking perhaps they should have left it. I think that without really having the chance to see what the content of the app was, it is hard to say what action is correct. Of course the point should be made (and has been) that apps in the Apple app store are inherently endorsed by Apple, both by being there but more so because Apple has some sort of approval system in place, meaning that they are supposed to be aware of the content. The point has already been made that this is like a bookstore refusing to sell a book, or a website deciding to do so. It is their decision to do so much the same way that if I were to write a book claiming the Christianity was wholly wrong and leading people to their doom, a Christian book store would most likely not sell my book.

This however overlooks one thing, the content. If the content were some sort of explanation of why gays are wrong, or 'immoral', then it is somewhat covered by the First Amendment. If however it is trying to claim somehow that it can 'cure' gays, it would not be (I think. I am by no means a expert on the Constitution, nor a lawyer on the subject). The difference would come from intent from my understanding. In the first, you are expressing your views and opinions, the second, an effect. If you could prove (Scientifically) your results, it would be one thing. But more then likely (Again, has I have not seen the content), we are talking about your religious views, which is bordering on dangerous territory. Apple, regardless of how you feel on this subject, has a right to protect its image, even if it is not the same has yours.

That said, I was brought out and decided to comment on several of the post here. Several of them have gone so far as to claim that Homosexuals do not want to get married, only to retract the statement and claim married in their 'definition', has well as pulling biblical quotes. First, the Bible is full of 'laws' that are meant to be followed. However, by your own arguments, these laws are not meant to be followed. Christians themselves say, when confronted by these laws, that they were meant for a different time, and are not applicable to today's world. If this is so, how is it that those laws are not meant for today, but the only one in the Bible pertaining to Homosexuality somehow does? Where, and what, exactly is the process by which this decision has been made? Those attempting to use the Bible have always chosen to pick and choose what 'laws' are meant to be followed, not to mention the process of interpretation that inevitably takes place. While I don't believe that it is an all or nothing thing, the simple fact that this inconsistency is never mentioned unless brought up by outside sources is hard to overlook. What few explanations that I have heard (and one was here), fail to address why one law is outdated but another is not.

Second, while marriage is linked to religion, the -rights- attached to them are not. The argument was made that Homosexuals do not wish to marry. When this was pointed out to be false, the statement was changed to marry in the man and women sense. While this may hold truth where religion is concerned, a major problem arises from the fact that it is untrue where rights are concerned. A Civil Union does not even grant the same rights. I have taken this argument stance before, and will again. Has a Bisexual individual, I should be able to marry whom I wish, male or female. If you feel that this intrudes upon your 'religious rights', I would be happy to grant Civil Unions the same rights. This way a government can grant the Civil Union while leaving your Religious Marriage alone. This however overlooks a bigger problem, what this has to do with Homosexuality.

After leaving this forum?, and cursing some other subjects to calm down, I have returned to state simply that this app crosses into dangerous territory, both with its name and supposed content. I feel that it should have been taken down (If even allowed through at all). While reading this I was reminded of a different forum in which the discussion was about whether or not gays should be given the rights of marriage. In it an individual alleged that Homosexual individuals were horrible due to the fact that he was raped by one, assuming my memory is correct. Others in the forum, after prying said fact from him, pointed out that the actions of that one individual certainly should not doom all others. I have come back to this subject time and time again, wondering what would happen should an individual claim they were raped by a Heterosexual individual? If one were to make the claim that all Heterosexual individuals were horrible and should be denied rights, would that individual still stand behind them has well due to the trauma they endured? I think not, most would stand against such actions, and work, much has the posters did there, to help him rethink such sentiments. More-so it brings to point the fact that simply because you believe it, or I do, does not make it law, nor right.

While I believe that the app should have been taken down, I have come to said conclusion not because I am Bisexual, not that I am not religious in the sense of following a set religion, but more so from hearing both sides of the argument (In so far as this forum has provided). I stand ready to support any apps that religious individuals wish to put out that would be for their religion. The few 'Homosexual' apps i have seen are more about support, or hooking up. While I can not speak for all the apps, it seems that if a 'Religious' app were released for this purpose, there would be support for it. Claiming that this is an attack upon your religion is a log in ones eye.
I apologize for the long post, it is six in the morning, and I may be rambling a bit now.

 

[dkyros]

Cure (from definition.com) "a means of correcting or relieving anything that is troublesome or detrimental"
And therein lies the problem. You just told a group of people that their way of life is troublesome or detrimental to themselves. That seems like a pretty big assumption all considering. If we want to go by this definition then we can assume Christianity needs a cure for having to go to service every week and give tithes as both troublesome and detrimental. However, there would be a shit storm for doing so and so we just don't do it because it would be insensitive.
Also, the problem is that these particular Christians that released the game never stopped to think about the reaction that would be seen by releasing this game with such an inflammatory name. That just goes to show you that their business plan was not well though out at all. One reason for this is that when you have the moral high ground you can take action and justify it with said morality. No thinking really involved there. That too can be seen as detrimental.
Now if you are Christian and are offended or disagree with this post you can probably see the problem with the Gay Cure app even if you wont admit that to yourself.

 

[fletch_talon]

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.

Just because you can't concieve it, does not make it impossible.

You can keep claiming that its not possible, but the truth is that its not impossible, just very unlikely. Unfortunately for your argument, in a period of time as vast as the theorised age of the universe the very unlikely can happen.

You can keep arguing that things don't happen without some intelligent being causing them, but thats a tad hypocritical unless you can come up with a decent explanation for how God came to be.
Whether Creationism, Intelligent Design or Evolution (coupled with Big Bang or similar theory) it all comes down to someone or something having been created without the input of an intelligent designer.

 

[fletch_talon]

Is there an 'app' to cure christianity/stupidity too? I'd imagine this fellow wouldn't be very pleased if there was.

Yes because clearly having an interest in religion or spirituality is a disease. Seriously, grow up.

Having an interest in the same sex is?


Well, now that you mention it...
http://boingboing.net/2009/06/06/evolution-religion-s.html

Did I say it was? No I didn't. So why don't you kindly go and fornicate with yourself.

You've gotten the wrong end of the stick here buddy.
You commented on a remark which essentially stated that if there had been an App which called religion a disease rather than homosexuality, the creators of the "Cure Homosexuality" app would be up in arms would be crying foul.

Nobody said (sincerely) that religion is a disease.

 

[concrete89]

I believe they should keep hosting it, but also commission an app called "Christ Cure" or "Straight Cure".
When everybody is equally offended, no one will be.
But seriously, by denying the existence of idiots, we make them martyrs.
Take my country, Sweden, for example. During the last election, most news-networks refused to cover interviews with a party called "Sverige democraterna" or "The Swedish Democrats". This, of course, gav them even more publicity among pretty much every inbred hick and airheaded ignoramus in the entire country. This, together with the fact that few actually understood their agenda, gave them even more votes. So, they got into the government.

Now that they are covered more thoroughly, however, people have started to see how bat-shit insane their leader is, and noticed that pretty much all of the people involved in the party are skinheads and spoiled rich kids, so they are probably not gonna get in next time...

But my point is that if you let the shitheads stay in the shadows, people won't understand how stupid they really are, and might start agreeing with them.

 

[thahat]

Seems reasonable enough. Pity it slipped through the net in the first place, really.

Disagreeing with gay culture is one thing, but claiming homosexuality is a disease? That's going a bit too far.

too far... i wouldent use too far, i think i'd use downright dumb. cause everyone knows its not something you can catch, either your born with it, or you aint.
i wonder though, what would the peoples reaction would be if they would have called gay-dom a defect, instead of a desease?

 

[Dogstile]

"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.

Obviously you're just going to assume i'm ignorant. Its ok, people do that. Maybe I just believe that people generally are more thick skinned than what other people think. Political correctness is bullshit.

 

[ThisIsSnake]

I don't see anything wrong with it, if someone wants to change, why wouldn't they?

Maybe cure isn't the right word but I don't see the fuss with it, then again I didn't see anything wrong with Michael Jackson being white. I mean, who cares?

Michael Jackson had his skin bleached because he was suffering from Vitligo, he was losing skin pigmentation in patches which looks pretty disgusting.

Also when someone has a desire to do something perfectly natural with other willing men and gets pressured by society into doing something like this the result is deep psychological problems down the line. It leads to massive amounts of self hatred from viewing yourself as wrong, this leads to depression and suicide.