Apple Brainwashes Gay Cure App from iTunes

[Nautical Honors Society]

I agree with this app and I am not a christian.

Humina Humina whhaaaa?

I can understand you arguing that the app shouldn't have been removed because of freedom of speech or whatever, but you actually agree with the concept of the app itself?

 

[Jodah]

This has nothing to do with free speech. Apple can choose what they host on their servers. Freedom of speech is something the Government has to deal with, not corporations. The only time Government can force a company to change is if it begins to infringe on free speech outside the confines of said company.

Apple banning this app is legal. Apple coming to The Escapist and banning (lets just assume they somehow had moderator privileges for the sake of discussion) anyone who speaks out against them is not.

 

[Grey_Wolf_Leader]

Ah, the old "Bible is Evil" accusation.

The book itself isn't evil, it's just filled with absurdities, and directives to do that which I would argue is certainly evil.

How do I put this? Christ explained that the law laid down in the Law of Moses was not the "Higher Law" he came to institute during his ministry. The Law of Moses was the law given because that was the law the Jews were ready for, but not the Higher Law Christ gave. The Higher Law was the original Ten Commandments Moses brought down from the mountain, but broke when he saw the Israelite worshiping an idol. He knew they were not ready for the Higher Law of the Lord, so he returned again and sought from the Lord the law which would be most appropriate for them at the time.

There is also a difference between the secular laws laid down in the Law of Moses, the laws that would be governmental in nature, and the ones which would be individual and behavioral. The Ten Commandments were the second type, but the governmental laws were the ones in Deuteronomy. These laws only applied to the ancient Israelites and the ancient government of Israel. These are not the secular laws of our modern era.

God instructed moses to create new, identical tablets after Moses shattered the first two. You're slathering interpretation onto what is actually written about, and the "they weren't ready for the higher law" explanation is an awfully thin explanation given that the second set of commandments was created immediately after.

Assuming I buy that explanation, then the Ten Commandments are all that we should be concerned about, and the Ten Commandments don't mention homosexuality at any point. Interpreting "adultery" to mean homosexuality is again injecting your own interpretation to what is actually there.

So I'll go ahead and just accept that the laws of Deuteronomy don't apply now for whatever reason. That raises more questions though. Even if that is the case, stoning anyone who is raped in the city and doesn't call out loud enough to be heard is an evil and wrong thing no matter who told you to do it or what society it applied to. It's like saying "yeah, people had slaves in the 1800s, but that was just the time." It doesn't matter what the law said, it was still wrong. How on earth can you be comfortable deriving your morality from the same supreme being that told his followers to murder anyone who thought differently than they did? In what context is that ever just? I'm not asking you to quote me scripture here, because it doesn't matter what the scripture says. Think with the brain god allegedly gave you. Any way you slice it, that's wrong.

Either way, Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses, including these secular laws saying to "slay this man for blaspheming the faith" with his Atonement, Death, and Resurrection, which is why Christians do not practice it anymore. This is one of the fundamental differences between the beliefs Jews and Christians.

Again, if the law of Moses is fulfilled and the Ten Commandments are all that matters, homosexuality is a-okay.

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.

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.

Here are some other points:
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.

 

[Saikonate]

My brother is gay, and I'm a Christian, and I see no discrepancy between the two.

Thumbs the fuck up right here. One of the most awesome things my mom (a staunch Christian) has ever said to me was "there's gonna be gay people in heaven! I'm sorry if that offends people, but it's true!"

The thing that bothers me is that doctors don't seem to want to do research into medicines and methods that could actually address this problem, because they are too afraid of "offending" the gay rights community. If the scientific community actually got up the courage to do something, maybe we could actually make progress.

Holy shit listen to yourself, you're actually advocating that we eliminate every gay person on the planet. If you replace "gay" with "mexican" here you have something that most people would find staggeringly offensive. You are suggesting something equivalent to that. I hope you understand that. The only difference in your viewpoint is that your interpretation of your holy book doesn't happen to condemn people of different races. That is literally all that's separating you from "eradicate all non-whites".

But in the meantime, and most important of all, why should someone with homosexual feelings use his feelings as a defining attribute of his person? You do not hear average people defining themselves as heterosexual and building up their entire identity around it.

Sex is important, but it should not define the whole of a people.

Heterosexuals don't have to build up a "straight identity" because our culture is so thoroughly entrenched in heteronormativity. The tacit assumption is that a person is straight. Most homosexuals are raised in a culture that is either ignorant or openly hostile towards their sexual identity, and being "out and proud" can be a way of coping with that and supporting others who may be in the same situation.

Also, the reality of the situation is you probably know a bunch of gay people who don't stand out in any meaningful way from the rest of the people in your life - whether you're aware of it or not.

 

[The Eggplant]

"Ultimately, this issue comes down to what we, as a culture, believe about equality and the freedom to express our beliefs," said Chambers. "It is our hope that Apple will reconsider its decision and allow our organization to be part of the ongoing conversation about the challenging issues many face today."

Oh, sweet beans on toast. The irony is so thick you could spread it with a fuckin' knife. Watch where you're slingin' words like "equality" around, buddy...it could come back to bite you in your sanctimonious arse.

Also, to the poster above me...rock on, brother, rock on. I like what I hear.

EDIT: Ah, yes. One other little thing.

Because homosexuality is a behavior and a culture, not an inherent trait or fundamental religious beliefs.

No. No it is not. It is a "culture" only in that when confronted by a global society so indoctrinated with thousands of years of heterosexuality, there are a number of LGBT individuals who find it best to go on the offensive--as it were--with regards to their sexuality, and in so doing perhaps carve out a niche space within which they can thrive. Call that a "culture" if you will, but I call it a damn shame and a capital example of a prejudiced majority...and I assure you that, given the choice to exercise their genetic sexual preferences unhindered by the stigma of society or the paraphernalia of their "culture" that some of them have created partly in self-defense, the vast majority of homosexuals would do so.

And yes, it is a behavior. Much as my heterosexuality is a behavior, or the desire of a horse to copulate with another horse is a behavior. You appear to be employing a highly selective and quite narrow definition of "behavior" here--bear in mind that all human urges and needs tend to manifest themselves in behaviors, so take care in your labeling.

Finally, on to this.

not an inherent trait or fundamental religious beliefs.

Oh dear, where do I even begin? First off, let me just point out that religious beliefs are in no way fundamental. They are artificial constructs far more precious (note that I don't mean valuable when I say precious here. Look it up.) than any brand of sexuality. Secondly...I'm not sure you thought about what you were writing when you said that homosexuality isn't an inherent trait. I invite you to consider the phrase itself: homosexuality. It's a sexual behavior, no more nor less inherent than any sexual desire--which, given the continued existence of the evolutionarily modern human race for the last 50-odd thousand years, would appear to be pretty fucking built-in. Whether homosexuality represents a sexual tangent in a biological sense is a wholly different argument (short answer: no, or at least certainly not given population density in this age of the world, long answer: same as the short answer, but with more shouting), but for pity's sake stop trying to claim it to be somehow morally repugnant on the basis of a constructed belief system far less ancient and far less substantial than the sexual preference you're using it to denounce.

 

[Light 086]

Ah, the old "Bible is Evil" accusation.
How do I put this? Christ explained that the law laid down in the Law of Moses was not the "Higher Law" he came to institute during his ministry. The Law of Moses was the law given because that was the law the Jews were ready for, but not the Higher Law Christ gave. The Higher Law was the original Ten Commandments Moses brought down from the mountain, but broke when he saw the Israelite worshiping an idol. He knew they were not ready for the Higher Law of the Lord, so he returned again and sought from the Lord the law which would be most appropriate for them at the time.

There is also a difference between the secular laws laid down in the Law of Moses, the laws that would be governmental in nature, and the ones which would be individual and behavioral. The Ten Commandments were the second type, but the governmental laws were the ones in Deuteronomy. These laws only applied to the ancient Israelites and the ancient government of Israel. These are not the secular laws of our modern era.

Either way, Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses, including these secular laws saying to "slay this man for blaspheming the faith" with his Atonement, Death, and Resurrection, which is why Christians do not practice it anymore. This is one of the fundamental differences between the beliefs Jews and Christians.

If a man hears voices today he's locked up in a mental institution, but in the past he's talking to god. Sooo... how do you know there is a god?

Why do people insist on homosexuality being a disease? I know several religious people who don't feel that way (yes most of them are straight, before you ask).

If there is a god then he created them too, so why should they be cured? Clearly he created them for a purpose as he is all knowing (according to the bible). If he did create them, then why should they go to hell or be condemned for his actions?

Also if god loves all his children still applies today as it did in the past, then why do the bibles claim gays to be evil/sinners?

Since I said 'bibles' that brings me to this: Why is there more than one version of the bible and different religions if there is only one god?

 

[loc978]

...I'm surprised that the gay community, and enlightened individuals in general, didn't just laugh and shrug it off. This kind of media attention was probably exactly what Exodus International wanted. Histrionics sell these days, sadly.

 

[Saikonate]

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.

 

[Grey_Wolf_Leader]

matter does not have the level of intelligence required to assemble and kick-start life, let alone make decisions...

This is true.
Matter is not intelligent.

You believe it came from evolution. But this does not make sense, as dumb matter does not have the capacity to create even a single celled organism.

This is false.
Or at least misleading. Matter has the ability to form a single celled organism, science does not suggest that it creates anything but rather that it can (did) form organisms given the right situation.

when Adaptation makes a choice

This is stupid.
Adaptation is not about choice. Birds did not choose to fly, man did not choose to walk on 2 legs. Adaptation is about chance mutations within a species and whether or not they produce a positive, negative or neutral change in an organism.

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.

 

[Saikonate]

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.

Are you suggesting that radiation-induced mutation is the sole means for long-term evolutionary change? Because it sounds like it, and that is completely absurd. It also sounds like you don't really understand evolution at all, but I don't think most creationists do.

Interestingly, the structure of DNA is not at all optimal for carrying information. It is, however, staggeringly resistant to the spontaneous loss of information. Almost as if through millions of years of evolution, the structure of DNA most resistant to harmful mutation was the one that proved best-suited for survival.

 

[Xannieros]

Eh, apples store, apple can choose what to host.

Although removing something simply because it might offend people is just silly >.> Grow up guys

It's not just that it's offensive, the name of it claims that being gay is a disease. And it was to help people struggling with it to get out. That in it's own is wrong, and is basically telling them that it's wrong to be gay.

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

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.

Like all Jewish people should be exterminated? Like all Muslim's are terrorists? Like all black people should be slaves?

Belief an be an extremely powerful thing, so no, I don't think ignorant beliefs should be tolerated.

I hear that quite a bit now, but no one seems able to define an "ignorant belief" to me. Why is it that, for example, your view is fine, but another view is "ignorant" and thus not tolerated?

An ignorant belief is in my opinion a belief that is contradictory with the fundaments of your own beliefs, meaning you don't even understand the meaning of it.

When for example, a christian comes out of his way to point fingers at somebody else, or a group, ignores the fact christianity, on its biblical base, condemns largely judgemental statements and actions. "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." (Matthew 7:1-2)

Sorry, can't give example for other religions as my knowledge of those religions is very limited.

 

[SinisterGehe]

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?

 

[Grey_Wolf_Leader]

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

If gays don't want to get married then why is gay marriage is like the number one gay right issue. The church won't allow then "sacred bond between a man and a women." remember. And really science hasn't been on the bible's side in a long time, they've already disproven more then half the bible, why would they take their orders from it? Believe me I scientists were afraid of being offensive we would get anywhere because they would be afraid to offend the religious. Scientists need to think with what they know to progress. Homosexuality doesn't harm society, the only thing that they are in danger of is the questionable judgement of God. So scientist want to work on the problems they see in front of them, not the problems of a book zero scientific merit. Scientists are in know way afraid. If its a concern of yours then you look for a solution, because they don't want it. Also they don't build there entire identity around it, do you build your entire identity around your religion, no of coarse, why do you assume gays do?

I mean they do not want to marry people of the opposite gender.
I am not sure what you mean by "disproven" the Bible. Most of the Bible is made up of historical events taking place in the ancient Middle-East, chronicling the rise and fall of the country of Israel and its people. That is historically verifiable stuff.

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.

 

[Sarge034]

If they renamed the app something less inflamitory and gave a warning as to the contents I think it would be fine. However, I do not approve of ANY sexuality being called a disease that needs a cure.

 

[Grey_Wolf_Leader]

My brother is gay, and I'm a Christian, and I see no discrepancy between the two.

Thumbs the fuck up right here. One of the most awesome things my mom (a staunch Christian) has ever said to me was "there's gonna be gay people in heaven! I'm sorry if that offends people, but it's true!"

The thing that bothers me is that doctors don't seem to want to do research into medicines and methods that could actually address this problem, because they are too afraid of "offending" the gay rights community. If the scientific community actually got up the courage to do something, maybe we could actually make progress.

Holy shit listen to yourself, you're actually advocating that we eliminate every gay person on the planet. If you replace "gay" with "mexican" here you have something that most people would find staggeringly offensive. You are suggesting something equivalent to that. I hope you understand that. The only difference in your viewpoint is that your interpretation of your holy book doesn't happen to condemn people of different races. That is literally all that's separating you from "eradicate all non-whites".

But in the meantime, and most important of all, why should someone with homosexual feelings use his feelings as a defining attribute of his person? You do not hear average people defining themselves as heterosexual and building up their entire identity around it.

Sex is important, but it should not define the whole of a people.

Heterosexuals don't have to build up a "straight identity" because our culture is so thoroughly entrenched in heteronormativity. The tacit assumption is that a person is straight. Most homosexuals are raised in a culture that is either ignorant or openly hostile towards their sexual identity, and being "out and proud" can be a way of coping with that and supporting others who may be in the same situation.

Also, the reality of the situation is you probably know a bunch of gay people who don't stand out in any meaningful way from the rest of the people in your life - whether you're aware of it or not.

Sorry, but homosexuality as far as I can see, is a disorder. When man is resurrected, he shall no more have such afflictions or infirmities as he did in life. The homosexual desire shall be made heterosexual again, and therefore the basic sexual drive that underpins this whole concept will not exist.

No. You deliberately misunderstand what I say. I am not saying, "Kill the Gays." I never said that. Neither do the vast majority of Christians. We do not want to kill anyone. I am saying that gays should make the personal decision to come of their own free will and decide to put their actions and this artificial culture they have built up behind them.

Homosexuality is not equivocal to race or gender, because it is a behavior, a lifestyle. You cannot choose your gender or your skin color. You can choose to be promiscuous or not.

Note, I am not saying that you can choose your instincts, I am saying you can choose how you respond to your instincts.

Annnnndddddd...Here is the word I knew would eventually pop up. No. I do not choose to be heterosexual because some else told me to. I am heterosexual because this is my basic biological reason for being. I am male. My duty, even by the most simple of biological commands, is to find a mate of the opposite gender. There are a whole lot of religious reasons layered on top of that as to why I desire to marry a woman. But I have chosen to believe these beliefs of my own free will. I studied them, I analyzed them, and I have found them good, so I accept them as my own.

Being "out and proud" is very disrespectful of the feelings of other. Gays may not realize this, but they hurt the feelings and disappoint the expectations of people when they behave uncivilly and flaunt their sexuality. If they were truly concerned about how others thought of them, they wouldn't do such a thing.

BTW: I am aware that I have probably run into and talked with a gay person somewhere in my life and maybe even know one. How exactly is that supposed to influence our conversations, since they never broached the subject of homosexuality? I do not fear that I will "catch the gay". They aren't leapers to be shunned. They are people just like me, except they decide that their personal desires are more important than their biological design.

 

[CleverCover]

.....nope. Don't see anything wrong with this. Totally fine with Apple removing it.

The app just sounds so wrong. He could have worded it better if he really wanted it to slide under the radar. But he used "Gay Cure". It just screams "I was created by a bigoted asshole and is just something to spread more hatred".

Way too obvious, dude.

 

[Super Toast]

I agree with this app and I am not a christian.

Then you're a prejudiced jerk.

OT: Glad to hear. Homosexuality isn't a disease.

 

[Grey_Wolf_Leader]

I agree with this app and I am not a christian.

...wait... what?

Please elaborate...

He's saying that he is a bigot.

I share the basic beliefs of the creator of this app. I believe homosexuality is sinful...

*snip*

*snip*

Okay, let's disregard every dumb law of the Old Testament (all 206 of them). We'll go ahead and stick with the New Testament.

Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves: "And that servant [slave], which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47)

Marrying a divorced woman is adultery. (Matthew 5:32)

Jesus said that whoever calls somebody a "fool" shall be in danger of hell fire (Matthew 5:22), yet he called people "fools" himself (Matthew 23:17).

Want more? You are free to believe in God. But YOUR religious views should not, and in a just world, world not, infringe upon the rights of others.

I never said it would. Part of the problem I think is that you assume I am some kind of Evangelical Christian. I am not. But in the public forums of democracy, the people vote on what laws they want, and even if the laws have a religious origin, so long as they do not infringe upon another's rights, the should be allowed to pass.
You seem to be taking some odd.

(Luke 12:47) - Christ is not talking literally here. This passage talks about the concept of "much is given, much is required". If a servant knows that he must do something and does not do it, he must bear the consequences. In ancient times, this meant that slaves could indeed be lashed, but Christ is not endorsing this kind of punishment.
(Matthew 5:32) - This is talking about a woman who had used frivolous reasons to divorce, not the result of say infidelity on her husband's part, but had divorced for no legitimate reason. Marriage is a life-long contract not supposed to be broken unless just cause is given.
(Matthew 5:22, Matthew 23:17) - Remember, Christ said to not judge unjustly. This is what he is talking about. As the Son of God, he knew how to judge perfectly well, and who could be legitimately called a fool.