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

Makes sense.

[grub]

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

(I jest, big Apple fan here.)

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.

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.

[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.

[Archangel Michael]

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

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?)

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

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.

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!

[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.

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?

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