Apple Brainwashes Gay Cure App from iTunes
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes to the first, no to the second. Same-sex attraction is what makes a person homosexual. You can fuck someone who's the same sex, but that's not what makes you gay. A different poster earlier made the same mistake when he said he "decided to be straight" because he slept with guys and realized he didn't want to. He was always straight, which is why he wasn't sexually attracted to the guys he slept with (or possibly he just identifies as straight because his sexual attraction to women is much stronger than his attraction to men - he could be a 1 or 2 on the Kinsey scale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale ).Simiathan said:
So they should hide who they are because it might hurt somebody's feelings? That's like saying I shouldn't walk around wearing a T-shirt advertising my favourite metal band because it might hurt the feelings and diappoint the expectations of teenyboppers who love Justin Bieber. Provided they're not doing something publically indecent like screwing their s/o in public or going around feeling people up, which would be inappropriate reguardless of gender, I see nothing wrong with someone being proud of who they are.Grey_Wolf_Leader said:
It may not be mu cup of tea to see two guys making out or holding hands or whatever, but to say that they can't do that is discrimination, no matter how you try and spin it.
But then where did God/the creator come from? Did he pop into existance from nowhere? because according to you, that's impossible. I know that 'in the begining there was the word and the word was with god' or was god, but that still doesn't answer where he came from.Grey_Wolf_Leader said:
For all we know life is a 1 in some insanely huge number chance random occurrance and, unlikely as that seems, there's a whole lot of space out there, full of stars, galaxies, solar systems and planets. No matter how small a chance it may be, a one in however many chance will still come to pass eventually.
But this isn't techncially a religious topic, so I'll try keep to the original subject.
Being gay isn't a disease. What you are and aren't attracted to isn't something you can change. A lot of it's hardwired into you and there's nothing you can do about it. The only bit about being gay that could be considered a 'choice' is whether or not you act on those feelings of attraction.
As for the ap - if it was intended for people who are confused about their sexuality and want to try and become straight it could ahve had a less offensive title. Like 'so you want to be straight' or something a lot less inflamatory.
I'm pretty sure a lot of people would be offended if it was a 'Cure voting Republican' or 'Cure listening to Justin Bieber' or reading Twilight or playing video games or whatever - all of which are actual choices some will find dubious, against their morals, beliefs or somesuch (although ones that certainly don't require a 'cure').
and on a lighter note...
http://www.shortpacked.com/2005/comic/book-1-brings-back-the-80s/09-independent-man/a-79/
Bollocks, I just think elevating one sex above the other arbitrarily is stupid.Grey_Wolf_Leader said:
Yes, it does.
I was like "Alma? Did I forget a book of the bible?" and then I realized, oh fuck, you're a mormon. This makes a lot more sense now. I'm even less inclined to believe something from an established liar like Joseph Smith than I am the Bible, which at the very least has the ambiguity that surrounds being an "ancient holy book" going for it. We'll probably never know with hard evidence that Jesus didn't perform miracles, just because it happened as long ago as it did. We do know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Joseph Smith was a liar and a crook, though! We know the religion he created is made-up nonsense. I'm not inclined to put a ton of effort into arguing with mormons since they work hard at ignoring reality. When you're that far gone, the discussion doesn't really seem like it could ever be productive.
You're rolling with it, then? It's okay to stone women to death if they commit adultery? Ouch. Alright chief, but don't expect people outside your bubble to agree with you, ever.
edit: I just realized you literally just said "this person got raped but she didn't fight back hard enough, kill her." Holy shit.
I'm off-handedly interested at the arguments you've been putting forward in another way: You seem almost overly willing to argue that what was okay for one society isn't necessarily okay for another, and what was wrong for one society might be totally fine for another. What's interesting to me about that is that religious people are normally the ones arguing that morality is immutable and unchanging and handed down from on high, etc. etc. But here I am saying that it's NEVER okay to kill people for committing adultery and it's ALWAYS wrong to murder someone because they worked on the sabbath. It's just interesting to NOT be the person accused of moral relativity for once.
The death penalty is complete barbarism and has no place whatsoever in a civilized society, and the idea that murdering someone is okay because they killed someone else is vengeance-based retributive bullshit. Exacting a pound of flesh should never be the purpose of a system of justice. The only time that murder becomes justified is murder in self-defense.
But it's not about whether they're right or (very very) wrong. It's about whether the App contained things that were directly and necessarily offensive. This kind of thing is one of our major tests of our commitment to "free speech" and such: Will we uphold the right when we think the guy on the other end is an asshat?Greg Tito said:
Now, this is not an issue of Freedom of Speech. The app store is a privately-owned business, and they can decide what's on their shelves, so to speak. But this does raise a fair question about whether something is "offensive" or not... and whether it should be allowed or not.
What about people who are offended by homosexuality? Probably a large portion of the American population, I'd wager. Should any apps that mention homosexuality, imply it, or otherwise nod in that general direction be blocked? The issue isn't as cut-and-dry as, "This guy's an idiot, so his opinion should be censored..."
This whole situation baffles me. Why did apple let it in the app store? Once there, WHY did people throw such a fit that the organized a petition to get it removed rather than choosing not to use or download the app? Why did apple cave to the demands of 140,000 people? (ok, honestly that one makes sense) But really, I feel like every concerned party is in the wrong on this one.
Guy who hates homosexuality makes an app to try and "bring them back" Ok, seems unnecessary but whatever floats your boat I guess.
Apple allows an "offensive" app to go up in their store. How did you guys NOT anticipate this turning into a huge mess? Was it intentional just for publicity? I honestly wouldn't put that past them.
Homosexual or just generally pissed off individual finds app in store and is MORALLY OUTRAGED. OMGHOWCOULDTHEY. I know, I'll petition the company so their store can't offend me anymore! That'll show those bigots! ha!
My point is people NEED to stop doing this kind of stuff. Also on a side note, the people that demanded this get taken down are starting to get dangerously close to "thought police" type behavior which is WRONG no matter how right the side you're taking is.
Guy who hates homosexuality makes an app to try and "bring them back" Ok, seems unnecessary but whatever floats your boat I guess.
Apple allows an "offensive" app to go up in their store. How did you guys NOT anticipate this turning into a huge mess? Was it intentional just for publicity? I honestly wouldn't put that past them.
Homosexual or just generally pissed off individual finds app in store and is MORALLY OUTRAGED. OMGHOWCOULDTHEY. I know, I'll petition the company so their store can't offend me anymore! That'll show those bigots! ha!
My point is people NEED to stop doing this kind of stuff. Also on a side note, the people that demanded this get taken down are starting to get dangerously close to "thought police" type behavior which is WRONG no matter how right the side you're taking is.
The true test of ones tolarence is tolareating behavor we find repulsive. It works both ways. Gay people understandably want to be treated with respect, and not to be discriminated against in any way, even if others find there life style, unacceptable. The result being, you have to, (or at least should) have the same strength of charater your expecting from others. I find ALOT of people fail in this reguard.
It's the flip side of real freedom, you have to accept that other people have same right to act and belive differently then you do. No matter how much you hate it. In that respect, i think this app shouldn't have been removed, OR, all apps relating to sexuality and belif should be removed. That's my 2 cents.
It's the flip side of real freedom, you have to accept that other people have same right to act and belive differently then you do. No matter how much you hate it. In that respect, i think this app shouldn't have been removed, OR, all apps relating to sexuality and belif should be removed. That's my 2 cents.
It's his opinion that you can "cure" being gay. That's wrong. If Mr. Chambers is indeed gay, that hasn't changed just because he's choosing to ignore his sexual proclivities and lead a straight lifestyle. If he was merely dabbling and was always straight, then he's simply chosen not to sleep with men, he hasn't chosen not to be gay. It's also entirely possible that he's a solid 4 on the Kinsey scale and that he's in equal measure hetero and homosexual. In any case, simply not acting on homosexual desires doesn't make someone straight.defskyoen said:
The comparison between gays and bestiality/necrophilia is tragically common and always off-point. A dead body or an animal is not a consenting adult human being.
I'd like to take the time to specially note that you linked a pubmed article that has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about. Did you even read the abstract, or did you just read "handicapped" in the title and think no one else would read it either? The article is about genetically defective viruses. Jesus.
Have you considered that it's only the bigoted perception that causes you to refer to being gay as a "disorder" that makes them unable to lead a normal life in the first place?
I'm sorry that you aren't allowed to freely discriminate as you would like, but that is not in and of itself discrimination, no.
That has nothing to do with it.dogstile said:
The app in question is claiming that "Being gay is a disease to be cured", that's not being politically incorrect it's being an asshole.
It's no more right than "Being white is a disease to be cured" or whatever else you want to throw out there.
I've seen the race as a disease comparison come up quite a few times, and I've got a question about it now. If someone believed race was a disease, Is that bigotry?
Discrimination against groups has always been about treating someone as less than human, but 'sick' people are still people. From an evolutionary standpoint, different colors of skin are genetic changes that are hereditarily passed on, and if any were inherently detrimental, they could be considered genetic diseases. Is it discrimination to offer a 'cure' to people who are unhappy with the color of their skin? I don't believe it is, because nowhere are you denying them any of the rights, privileges, or considerations you give to any other person.
Whether or not such a thing is offensive, however, is a completely different situation. If I say one of your features is a disease, and you don't think it is, it is quite possible for you to find that offensive.
Discrimination against groups has always been about treating someone as less than human, but 'sick' people are still people. From an evolutionary standpoint, different colors of skin are genetic changes that are hereditarily passed on, and if any were inherently detrimental, they could be considered genetic diseases. Is it discrimination to offer a 'cure' to people who are unhappy with the color of their skin? I don't believe it is, because nowhere are you denying them any of the rights, privileges, or considerations you give to any other person.
Whether or not such a thing is offensive, however, is a completely different situation. If I say one of your features is a disease, and you don't think it is, it is quite possible for you to find that offensive.
A homosexual is someone who is sexually attracted to the same sex, dude. It's not something that's difficult to define. You become one when you have sexual attraction to the same sex, at the period of your life when you develop a sexual attraction to the same sex. Why did you think those were unanswerable questions? I'm confused.defskyoen said:
You most certainly were - you said (paraphrasing) "there are a lot of other abnormalities, and we don't consider those normal." The difference is those other abnormalities aren't based on a consenting relationship between two adult humans. I didn't mention paraphelia because (corpse-fucking aside) I could give a shit if someone wants to have a relationship with an inanimate object.
I am absolutely being intolerant of necrophiliacs and people who practice bestiality, and I'm okay with that. If you don't see the difference between that and your position on LGBT individuals, I can't help you. It's like you want to catch me in some sort of trap but you're doing it by setting up such an absurd premise that you're coming off ridiculous.
I don't know how to respond. You clearly do not have a clue what you're talking about. The article you linked has nothing to do with the topic we are discussing. Nothing.
Do you mean when I implied you said being gay was an "affliction"? If you were referring to infertility there and not homosexuality, I think it's easy to see how a normal reader might've gotten those confused. If it makes you feel better, I'll go back and replace the word affliction with "disorder", since that's something you've called it a number of times, and maintains the strength of my argument.
I'm a big fan of the truth. If people are being bigots, or discriminating, I have no qualms about labeling them as such. As for being close-minded, I don't think you understand what that term means. It's not that I'm not open to receiving new ideas, it's just that I've already taken the time to evaluate those that you're advancing, and I've found them lacking.
I'm confused by your closing sentence - are you saying that Chambers is gay but living straight, and we should respect that, or that there's a dichotomy between being gay and having a family, or that being okay with homosexuality and having a family are at odds? I don't understand what point you're trying to make.
As a final note, I don't think I was able to respond to nearly as much of your post as I would've liked because I honestly had a lot of trouble understanding it. I'm not sure I can ask you to do anything about it, but you jump from topic to topic sort of frenetically, and it's rarely clear what you're responding to, or what argument you're trying to make. I guess if you could try to use fewer ambiguous pronouns, that would probably help a ton.
What would matter in this case is whether their belief that race was a disease was correct or not. Since it isn't, yeah, I'd call it bigotry.greendrag13 said:
Or just differently than you'd treat someone not belonging to that group. I don't think anyone would argue that denying service at a restaurant to a gay person was treating them as "less than human", but it's most certainly discrimination.
Careful, you're treading into dangerous territory here. We know that certain genetic traits cause people to be more vulnerable to certain conditions - for example, fair-skinned people are more vulnerable to UV radiation, and people with red hair are more sensitive to thermal pain. A great many genetic traits are inherently detrimental in some form or fashion - 'curing' them, attempting to 'improve the genetics' of the population at large, is an argument for eugenics, which I don't think you're prepared to advance.
One step Forward, two steps back.
I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I think a 'gay cure' is incredibly stupid. On the other hand, I really dislike Apple deciding what it's clientele is allowed to buy for their iPhone.
It just seems... stupid.
I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I think a 'gay cure' is incredibly stupid. On the other hand, I really dislike Apple deciding what it's clientele is allowed to buy for their iPhone.
It just seems... stupid.
I heard it from someone a while ago, and thought it would be appropriate. No one should be able to use the excuse of religion to discriminate against others.ProtoChimp said:
Yea, science had a great way of explaining it. Something about Mother nature trying to cull the herd of overpopulated species...Simalacrum said:
