Apple Removes Gay Cure App From App Store

recoiledsnake writes "Apple has removed the Gay Cure app after the pressure on Apple to remove the app started to snowball, culminating in an online petition initiated by Change.org which collected over 140,000 online signatures from people who wanted the app removed. Searching for the app now yields zero search results and Exodus International President Alan Chambers tweeted the following on Tuesday night. 'It's official, the @ExodusInl App is no longer in the @AppStore. Incredibly disappointing. Watch out, it could happen to you. #freedom' Gay Cure isn't the first app Apple has removed for touting an anti-homosexual philosophy. Apple back in November removed an app called the Manhattan Declaration which advocated the dignity of marriage as the union of one man and one woman." I don't think Apple should have banned it: they should have just packaged it with an app to cure bigotry.

Comments

App to cure Bigotry.

[Sonny Yatsen]

I don't think Apple should have banned it: they should have just packaged it with an App to cure Bigotry.

Isn't there a 10 day waiting period required for that app?

Makes sense.

[grub]

Why would Apple want the vast bulk of their customer base cured?

(I jest, big Apple fan here.)

Re:You can remove the gay, but not the FABULOUS!

[DamonHD]

At least your stereotype manages nearly two whole dimensions...

Rgds

Damon

Hypocrisy

[Patrick May]

Everyone complains about Apple's tight control over what apps can be installed -- until that power is used to ban an app they disagree with. Sure it's a bigoted, ridiculous app. But just who's phone is it?

Re:Hypocrisy

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Please point to the paragraph in the EULA where it says this. Or are you just karma whoring ?

Public Accomodations?

[SHP]

So Visa/Mastercard can turn you away if they don't like your politics. Apple can turn you away if they don't like your ideology. What's next? And does this bother anyone besides me? Could it not be argued that things like card payment services and the iPhone platform are public accommodations that should be open to all on a non-discriminatory basis? If not, we risk granting de facto censorship ability to private organizations, relinquishing a substantial part of the freedom gained over the past few hundred years. This concerns me.

And yes, I would feel the same way regardless of the beliefs and ideologies being rejected. Freedom is freedom, regardless of one's beliefs.
 

Re:Public Accomodations?

[johnlcallaway]

I fully support Apple's right to ban the app. Since I don't approve of their ban (both now and in the past), I don't buy Apple products.

See how that works????

You have the freedom to decide what crap to buy, and the owners of Apple have the freedom to decide what crap they want to sell. Your selfish desire for more freedom is at the cost of taking it away from someone else.

Rename the app....

[787style]

In all seriousness, why take this down? The only people who would legitimately download this are people who are uncomfortable with being homosexual (for whatever reason - I wouldn't, but there may be some). Why would you want to deny those people that opportunity? It may not be society or their family that pressures them to want to be heterosexual - it could be individual free will. I can totally get why the word "Cure" would be offensive - that would insinuate that being gay is a disease. Rename the app to something more PC, but I don't think pulling the app is correct.

DISCLAIMER

I have several gay members of my family, have no discontent or ill will toward them - LOVE THEM TO DEATH. Do NOT believe that gay is a disease. My point is simply about choice.

Re:Rename the app....

[BetterSense]

I agree. I guess I just don't see what's so offensive about this. It's not like they forced anyone to use this app. What harm could this app possibly cause anyone? I agree that it seems a bit strange to me, but anyone who would purchase this app can be assumed to be interested in using it. If nobody wants it, and there really are no gay people that are interested in using this kind of thing, then nobody will buy it. It's just not a problem to be fixed. If there ARE people out there who are interested in a "Gay Cure" app, then why wouldn't you want them to have access to it? If you oppose this app you are basically saying "All people with gay tendencies should stay gay, they should be gay and they should like it, because if they did otherwise would crush my worldviews/conflict with the ax I have to grind". I thought that the open minded and undiscriminatory attidude would be to let people be free to explore their sexuality on their own. That IS the goal of the "sexual freedom/equality" crowd, right? Or is their agenda something else (blanket pro-gaydom)?

I just don't understand the mentality of "I am offended that Apple would provide the community at large the opportunity to purchase something that nobody could possibly be interested in because I will not allow the possibility that there might be someone interested in this sort of thing. On top of that, I will actively work to get this app removed so that nobody is able to use it". If you ask me the greater bigots are not the creators of the app, it's the 140,000 who went out of their way to have it removed just because it offended their own delicate sensibilities.

Re:Rename the app....

[TheGatesofBill]

The thing is, it was never called "Gay Cure". It was listed in the App Store as "Exodus International".

Re:Rename the app....

[ccandreva]

I'm going to bet that no one talking about this knows what the apps actually does. Does the app say "Hold this to your forehead for 5 minutes while running to be cured of being gay" ? If so then it could be denied as being a fraud and skip the whole issue.

Along the same line, a vaccination for being gay would be just as bogus, but wouldn't be an argument against vaccines for polio.

I'm going come back on the freedom side. A person can want or not want, whatever they want. Moreover, as a general fear of absolutes, I would be incredibly surprised if everyone who was gay, was so for the same reason. I don't think we know nearly enough about it to make blanket statements.

Apple, of course, is free to do whatever they want with their business, and we are free to buy whatever phone we want, which is why I have a G2.

Re:Rename the app....

[Anonymous Coward]

This. Replace "homosexual" with "pedosexual" in the above. Since neither orientation is one that someone chooses, they are the same.

mixed feelings and abstract hate.

[goombah99]

On the one hand, it's offensive and Apple has a previous precedent of banning things it deems controversial. Despite complaints and a few inconsistency it seems like they reasonably adhere to this. Which is good since even if you disagree with the policy, at least you can more or less expect what will happen if you push it. Thus I was surprised when this got approved.

on the other hand, if all it takes is a petition to remove an app then boy is that a bad precedent to set. Consider how the SF library system in the mid 80s bolderized mary popins to remove the uncultured ebonics of the black maid because they deemed it portrayed black women badly. One can go on. but everything pisses some group off. That in fact was the rationale Ray Bradbury gave for writing Farenheight 451. All books offend so burn them all.

And when I think about it, what do I care if there is a gay cure app? I'm not planning on buying it. If you think about it, the urge to ban that app is pretty aligned with the urge to write that app. that is, the writer of the app is probably concerned about what gay people might be doing in bed behind closed doors but he will never encouter that himself. and the people offended by it will never buy that app. yet both want to eliminate things that abstractly bother them

Re:mixed feelings and abstract hate.

[AndyAndyAndyAndy]

Pretty much, yeah. The fact that it (was) there didn't matter to me - it wasn't a concern. But now that it's gone, there's a certain measure of "yeah, take that, you bigots," belying the fact that it's just another increment towards "Apple's Internet," which is different from Android's, Comcast's, Etc. "Walled gardens" might mean something after all. I guess you gotta go with the best one... does cleaning up bigotry (bending to the pressure) count in their favor or not?

Re:mixed feelings and abstract hate.

[johnlcallaway]

Really ... it's offensive? Funny, I have to put up with all the crap about losing weight and stop smoking and drinking and taking drugs. All of those comments and ads treat me as a second class citizen, as if something is wrong with me. How would you like to turn on the TV and see ads telling you what how awful you are because you smoke or are overweight.

Fortunately, I don't give a frig about what other people think, and live my life the way I want to. Sure, I try to loose weight. But I refuse to stop enjoying a cigar and glass of bourbon now and then, and the even rarer toke.

Maybe people need to stop being so freakin' sensitive. It's OK for others to think one's behavior is unacceptable. How one handles that opinion is a reflection upon their own traits. Those that tried to ban this app just can't face the fact that a lot of people think homosexual sex is disgusting (well .. just the guy kind anyway).

What's next, a ban on an app that says it's OK to stop picking your nose???

What a bunch of whining babies. If you don't like the app, don't install it.

Re:mixed feelings and abstract hate.

[Kelbear]

I have to agree. It bothers me to see a "gay cure" app. But not to the point that I think they should have been banned.

It's certainly contentious, but not outright hostile. However wrong their basis may be, it's implied that the creators are putting that app out to help those who they believe to have a problem.

From an abstract perspective, I feel that the appropriate response for this sort of ignorance would be to enlighten, rather than to censor. It's not helpful to simply stifle those that would disagree with me, the ultimate goal is to show them why they should agree. Shutting them up only hardens their hearts making it more difficult for meaningful discussion.

Should they cross the line into hate speech, then I would see legitimate reasons to censor them, but this was not the case.

Re:mixed feelings and abstract hate.

[Archangel Michael]

Where is the left wing crying "censorship"? Censorship is bad no matter who does it.

Re:mixed feelings and abstract hate.

[raodin]

Really? You think products to help people lose weight or stop smoking are even remotely in the same league as a "gay cure?"

How about a "cure" for being black? Or a "cure" for being a Christian?

Being overweight is the result of poor choices. Yeah, it sucks when people get picked on for it, but it is an unhealthy condition that can be changed. Offering people help with that process is not hate. Being gay is not a disease and it has no cure. Telling people that a basic part of who they are is a disease is hate.

Maybe Apple shouldn't ban apps at all, I'd prefer that myself. They've already started down that road, however, and hate speech isn't exactly an unreasonable thing to ban, if you are going to ban anything.

Re:mixed feelings and abstract hate.

[LordLimecat]

How about a "cure" for being black? Or a "cure" for being a Christian?

Well, I already know there are people out there who believe in those things, so it doesnt really affect me to know that they know how to write apps.

and hate speech isn't exactly an unreasonable thing to ban, if you are going to ban anything.

If you actually read what the app is like and what the writer's website is like, it doesnt exactly scream "burn the homos", nor does it look anything like what one would call hate speech.

Re:mixed feelings and abstract hate.

[Xest]

Personally I'm anti-censorship and mostly dislike Apple.

But I actually applaud them for this move. Whilst I would much rather Apple ran a completely uncensored store and allowed this app and everything else to go, they don't. As they don't run an uncensored store, and have, in the past, censored applications based on their arbitrary moral judgements, then it implies anything they allow through their filter is, by that same moral judgement, deemed acceptable by them.

This means that by allowing the app to remain Apple would be claiming that for example, whilst porn is morally unacceptable (as they have banned porn apps in the past) then applications such as this are morally acceptable. The perception being that Apple think this sort of thing is okay, but for example, porn is not.

As I said in a previous post in the other article, I think the best position for a company to be in is to not censor at all and hence not have to make moral judgements. Apple has done the right thing here - they've accepted that if they're going to enforce some morals such as banning porn, then they must enforce other morals such as banning the views of right wing bigoted fascist religious nutjobs.

Note that I'm not saying Apple shouldn't have an approval process not censoring doesn't preclude filtering out malware as that's a judgement based on security rather than arbiitrarily defined morales for example, but simply that once they got into the censorship game, they have to stand by their decisions, and in this case they've made the progressive, forward thinking decision.

So perhaps this left wing you are talking of simply recognises that the company has already made the decision to censor and hence that's really not what's in question here. Perhaps they simply recognise that the debate came down to what Apple feels is morally right or not based on that prior decision to censor. Perhaps they're simply happy that in a situation where censorship is already a given, it's better to accept that's the case and focus on the new battle- that of ensuring any censorship that does happen equally squeezes right wing religious bigotry and ignorance out of the equation. This doesn't stop protesting against censorship in general too, merely it's the case that that's just not what the battle was here.

So congratulations, they won, they got Apple to do the right thing under it's own rules. Now they can go back to trying to convince Apple to change those rules, and yes, if that means removing censorship, it means allowing this app back out too. One might even argue that forcing Apple to make decisions publicly like this which aren't the best thing to have publicised PR wise is in itself a good tool in fighting against such censorship in the first place as again, the only reason Apple had to have this battle is because they had chosen the censorship route.

Well done Apple on doing the right thing under your current rules, and well done arbitrarily defined left wing (whoever you are) that Archangel Michael seems to think has done something wrong.

Re:mixed feelings and abstract hate.

[thedonger]

It bothers me to see a "gay cure" app.

1. 1. Don't worry, no one is trying to force a cure on you; and,
2. 2. What about all the people who really, truly want to be cured of "gay?"

We preach that intolerance is wrong, but we are intolerant of people with opposing views. We can't tolerate the idea of a gay man wanting to learn to be straight. Even if the idea is wholly ridiculous, people have the right to do things we think are stupid (astrology, reiki, ouija board, need I continue?)

Re:mixed feelings and abstract hate.

[uglyduckling]

Thanks for injecting some rationality here. This is the thing I can't understand: if someone wants to change their gender, that's something that's seen as acceptable, even if a bit unusual. If someone wants to change their sexual orientation, it's presumed that someone with an agenda must have brainwashed that person and the community that shares their (original) orientation takes offence. No-one should be pushing this sort of thing on anybody, but I can't understand why it's an issue for such software to exist.

Re:mixed feelings and abstract hate.

[c6gunner]

Perhaps they're simply happy that in a situation where censorship is already a given, it's better to accept that's the case and focus on the new battle- that of ensuring any censorship that does happen equally squeezes right wing religious bigotry and ignorance out of the equation. This doesn't stop protesting against censorship in general too, merely it's the case that that's just not what the battle was here.

First they came for the Porn Apps.
And I didn't speak out because that wasn't the battle, and, anyway, it's kinda overrated.

Then they came for the Right-Wing-Bigots.
And I didn't speak out because that wasn't the battle, and anyway, they kinda suck.

Then they came for the Jews.
And I didn't speak out because that wasn't the battle, and anyway, there's that whole Palestine thing ...

Then they came for me.
And there was no one left to speak out for me.

Re:mixed feelings and abstract hate.

[the_womble]

TO put it another way, the REAL problem is not whether this or any other particular app is "acceptable", its that if you buy an Apple product that is tied to their app store then Apple decide what software it is acceptable for you to use, not you.

Re:mixed feelings and abstract hate.

[StikyPad]

As they don't run an uncensored store, and have, in the past, censored applications based on their arbitrary moral judgements, then it implies anything they allow through their filter is, by that same moral judgement, deemed acceptable by them.

Nonsense. Do you think Penguin Classics condones the word "nigger," (as in Huck Finn), or that Random House approves of pedophilia (Lolita)? It's possible to have standards and not publish a book of fart jokes while at the same time not necessary agreeing with the content put forth in the works that *do* meet your standards. The same applies to apps.

Free speech isn't just to protect speech we agree with -- anyone can do that -- but to protect speech we *disagree* with, however vehemently.

I have to agree with whomever stated that it's disappointing to see Apple fold by mere virtue of a petition. This is especially troubling when lawmakers are pressuring Apple to remove apps as well. Will they bow to that pressure too? Where does it end?

Re:mixed feelings and abstract hate.

[scot4875]

Gee, 4 posts in and you're already assuming that the "left wing" is totally for this app's removal.

I'm for seeing Apple squirm over this. They put themselves in this position of playing morality gatekeeper, and now they're in a no-win situation. Ultimately I think it's stupid for them to remove it, *except* that they'd already set the precedent by removing other offensive applications. Now they have to at least *pretend* to maintain some consistency.

I'm loving it. No matter what happens, everybody loses.

--Jeremy

Re:mixed feelings and abstract hate.

[vegiVamp]

I'm gay. The app, itself, I don't much care about - although I find GPs thoughts about it being two-sided most interesting. The app doesn't touch me, and it's just an app, it doesn't actually do anyone any harm.

What I do care about, however, is the existence of right-wing, religious,homophobic nutters who sincerely believe that I can be cured, and that drugging and violent electroshocks are the way to go about it. Those are exactly the nutters who get their sick, distorted world-view reinforced by this kind of app, and become then even more likely to take it out on me and my fellow deviants.

So, yes, I do want this app banned. What I do in my bedroom has no impact on them whatsoever; but what they would do to me to "cure" me is harmful to the extreme.

It's only right.

[LoyalOpposition]

I'm EXTREMELY glad they removed that app. I'm sure I speak for all open-minded, freedom-loving people when I say that I don't want anyone exposed to that kind of material.

~Loyal

Wrong decision...and fuck the app store anyway

[aaaaaaargh!]

I'm a developer and I'm selling programs for Mac OS, but as long as Apple decides which app to include in the app store and which not I won't buy or use an iPhone and won't develop for iOS. It's as simple as that. There should be no restrictions about which app someone can legally run on their computer, phone, or any other device they have bought, and Apple has set a bad precedent with the app store model.

Before people complain that company X can sell on their own store whatever they want: Sure they can. If others can legally open another app store for the same device, that should be fine. But locking devices/only allowing whitelisted apps should definitely be illegal, and I hope that future legislation will make it illegal (but doubt it will happen).

Re:You can remove the gay, but not the FABULOUS!

[nyctopterus]

Dude, acting effeminate, loving musicals, having a house with incredible interior design and going antiquing are not being gay. Loving the cock and not the vagina is. So why should the guy change his personality just because he managed to change his sexual preferences? (And just to be clear, I don't think for a second that he did manage that.) You're being bigoted.

you have a choice

[Twillerror]

Write the app for android and distribute it via your site. I'm guessing this wouldn't get removed from marketplace.

Apple has the right to remove anything. If you don't like it don't support them by buying their products, otherwise deal with it. The app store is like a cable channel. If comedy central doesn't want to run your ad no matter how you pay them they don't have to.

Keep writing letters saying you want to be able to install your own apps via websites, but other than that Apple can do what they want. I just buy Android even if it isn't quite as nice, because lets be honest...of the 100,000s of app only about 1,000 are worth anything. ie. like my banks native app...and although I had to wait 6 months I got it on the Android. Angry brids has been on the android for a long time now...what are these magical apps that you can't get on Android or at least some kind of a clone.

Re:You can remove the gay, but not the FABULOUS!

[h4rm0ny]

Actually, yes, the post is offensive because it promulgates a stereotype of homosexuality - that it is all about being feminine and obsessing about interior design, or that liking musicals is a sign of being gay. I don't care about the app. If someone isn't comfortable with their sexuality and wants to try and shift it around a bit, that's their business. But re-enforcing stereotypes and caricatures of homosexuality affects actual homosexuals.

Gay Cure was NOT the name of the app

[eratosthene]

In the interest of being truthful, the name of the app was Exodus International. There was nothing at all hateful or bigoted. This was aimed purely at people who had *unwanted* same-sex attraction, as is the entire organization behind it. People should really inform themselves about an organization before they start spewing rhetoric about how hateful they are. Exodus is not, and never will be, an anti-gay interest group. They sincerely want to help people, whether it's because they are fed up with the gay lifestyle, can't reconcile their same-sex attractions with their faith, or honestly just want information about whether there is another way. My family are close friends with Alan Chambers, as well as many other people within Exodus. If you are happy being gay, more power to you. They will never try to coerce someone into being "ex-gay", and they will never be a source of hatefulness to anyone. All they want to do is show that there might be another way of life that they believe is more fulfilling than the typical gay lifestyle.

On another note, this is yet another example of why the Android platform is light-years ahead of the iPhone platform. Never would have been removed, and even if it had been, the developer would have been free to distribute it themselves. While I completely understand that it is within Apple's rights to remove any app for any reason, I can't help but think that this sets a very bad precedent. If all it takes is a petition and enough public pressure to remove an app, who's to say what other legitimate apps might be taken down? I'll take my open(-ish) platform, thank you.

Re:Shut up with the "bigotry" nonsense!

[circletimessquare]

there are no two sides. unless by that you mean supporting someone's identity and denying them their identity

no religion can be respected that denies someone who they are. there is no choice here. if you are born with the orientation to view members of your own sex as sexual objects, then you are who you are, and as long as what happens is between consenting adults, there is no crime committed, legally or spiritually

i will respect no religious organization that is so caught up in mumbo jumbo that it thinks it has a right to tell people to deny themselves who they are. plus, the catholic church really needs to learn to shut up about delivering judgments on issues of human sexuality. seeing as the catholic church completely and utterly does nothing but screw that issue up: pedophile priests, helping spread AIDS in africa by telling people not to use condoms, continuing to population time bombs like in the philippines by denying people a right to family planning, etc. this contirbutes to human suffering. these are but a few of the examples of the teachings and policies of the catholic church directly contributing to human suffering in this world. this is what god wants? if jesus christ were alive today, compassionate man he was, he would be speaking out against the catholic church as an abomination of his beliefs

frankly, i admire the catholic's church on issues of social justice, but it when it comes to issues of human sexuality in this world, the catholic church is categorically a force for evil in this world. a bunch of old grumpy VIRGIN MEN (no women, no married priests): what the bleep do these people know about human sexuality and why should we listen to their ideas about it, considering they have no experience with it (or, they're not supposed to, in the case of the many hypocrites on the subject matter in the church)?

so you are right, bigotry is the wrong word

strident arrogant ignorance. or how about hubris

the catholic church really needs to shut up about any and all issues having to deal with human sexuality. it can't seem to do anything on that subject matter except cause evil in the world

Re:Shut up with the "bigotry" nonsense!

[slim]

Sorry, that's all just bigotry with a load of after-the-fact bluster on top of it, as an attempt at justification.

I know people who consider themselves Catholics who are entirely comfortable with homosexuals practising their sexual preference (and, equivalently, heterosexuals using contraception).

You are allowed to disagree with the Pope, and you can still call yourself a Catholic if you like.

Re:Shut up with the "bigotry" nonsense!

[girlintraining]

Well thank you, Taco, for calling everybody who doesn't approve of homosexuality a bigot

Bigot, n., def.: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. No, Taco has it right -- the vast majority of evidence on the topic supports the statement that homosexuality in a person cannot be altered. Claiming otherwise because of your personal beliefs is bigoted behavior. Hiding behind statements of religious persecution doesn't change this.

You are censoring me...

[Brannon]

by not displaying my political banners on the front of your house. Censorship is bad and evil you jackbooted thug!!!

Re:Shut up with the "bigotry" nonsense!

[Kohath]

Censoring and name-calling are the new tolerance and open-mindedness.

Face it, Slashdot is a site where bigotry against religious people is promoted and advanced. Slashdot editors and commenters also overwhelmingly approve of bigotry against corporate leaders and corporate workers. It's a fever swamp of hatred and prejudice against these people and others. And Taco leads.

Re:Shut up with the "bigotry" nonsense!

[I am Jack's username]

the real reason why it's sinful to the Church is that it denies the life-giving aspect of sexuality entirely

Is it also sinful for postmenopausal women or sterile people to have sex? Or people who realize that human overpopulation is the root cause of almost every catastrophe facing the biosphere?

The fallacy of moral equivalence

[Brannon]

You think that the following two statements are morally equivalent:

"I'm gay and that's okay"
"You are gay and need to be either cured or persecuted"

They aren't.

Apple didn't ban because somebody somewhere was offended, they banned the app because a large group of people was *legitimately* offended. Point out a serious app with the theme "You are straight and need to be either cured or persecuted" if you want to prove me wrong.

Re:One problem

[slim]

Do you therefore thing Amazon should remove Mein Kampf from its book store? https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mein-Kampf-Uncensored-Adolf-Hitler/dp/0984536132/

OK, we can make an exception for Mein Kampf, perhaps, because anyone can put it in its historical context; but what if something similar were written today? Should Amazon not stock it? What if Amazon refused to stock material about some niche political view that you happened to agree with?

this is actually a very good point

[circletimessquare]

i believe that pedophilia, like homosexuality, is a biological, natural, innate malformed sexual orientation. both are malformed in the darwinian sense, the sense that neither, biologically, results in offspring

however, socially, homosexuality is harmless because it occurs between consenting adults. therefore there is no social reason to have any attitude towards homosexuality except to shrug: it doesn't matter, no big deal

unfortunately, pedophiles are oriented towards children. children are not able to make informed consent. of course, children can be fooled into consenting, which many pedophiles think they are doing, but a child is in no position to make decisions about their sexuality, since their sexuality is not formed yet: there is no INFORMED consent possible. furthermore, the influence of the pedophile's advances on that child is harmful to that child's development of their own sexuality. what is appropriate and what is not. therefore the genetic future of the parent of that child is threatened. therefore there is an innate darwinian biological revulsion fear and hatred towards pedophilia: it threatens your genes by threatening the proper formation of the sexuality of your children, which is needed to pass on your genes

so pedophiles, unfortunately, have an innate sexual orientation which utterly and completely dooms their entire lives. in this respect i think of pedophilia like i think of cystic fibrosis or huntington's disease: you are genetically doomed to a life of suffering. either the pedophile can try, often unsuccessfully, to suppress their sexuality their entire lives, or they can engage in activity that is not only criminal, and trangressive towards the healthy psycholigcal development of an innocent child, but you could get killed by enraged parents. there is no way a pedophile can exercise their sexuality without being a criminal. castration doesn't even work: the desires stay in the mind

i really see no solution to pedophilia except banishment to northern greenland. it is a horrible curse. pedophiles just are innately incompatible with human society