Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Iphone Software Apple

Apple Removes Gay Cure App From App Store 917

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the bending-to-pressure dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Removes Gay Cure App From App Store

Comments Filter:
  • by Sonny Yatsen (603655) * on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @09:12AM (#35585814) Journal

    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?

    • by goombah99 (560566) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @09:22AM (#35585918)

      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

      • by AndyAndyAndyAndy (967043) <afacini.gmail@com> on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @09:33AM (#35586082)
        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?
        • by Archangel Michael (180766) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @09:58AM (#35586416) Journal

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

          • by Darth Maul (19860)

            It's only censorship if it blocks your own ideals. Blocking the opposing view is welcome!

          • by Brannon (221550) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @10:09AM (#35586588)

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

          • by Xest (935314) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @10:30AM (#35586958)

            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.

            • by c6gunner (950153) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @10:58AM (#35587566)

              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.

              • by DJRumpy (1345787)

                Interesting. Google recently removed malware apps. Is that censorship? Why was the offending app removed? The answer was that it caused potential harm to the end user. Ideally any app that causes emotional distress can be just as harmful. The simple fact remains that both shops are curated to some extent and by the extremely generous definition, they are both censoring. You can't be all hurray for one while slamming the other when the end result is the same under that broad definition. Both companies have a

            • by the_womble (580291) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @11:04AM (#35587686) Homepage Journal

              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.

            • by StikyPad (445176) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @11:24AM (#35588018) Homepage

              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 [cnet.com] to remove apps as well. Will they bow to that pressure too? Where does it end?

          • by jemenake (595948)

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

            Right here, for one.

            Now, granted, I haven't actually seen the app, but I'm not hearing that it bashes gays, or says that god hates them, or whatever. I hear that it's supposed to be a support tool for any gays out there who (erroneously, IMHO) think that they can be "fixed" through some kind of therapy. If this were an app claiming to help left-handed people "become right-handed" or turn lead into gold, we'd all just laugh it off. But because this involves an issue that is usually accompanied by intolera

            • by julesh (229690)

              Frankly, I don't see it as really hurting anybody. Yeah, it's misguided and dumb, but it's not necessarily hate speech.

              Hate speech isn't the issue with this, AFAICT. The problem is, the app advocates a quack form of psychotherapy that is considered harmful by a number of important bodies, including the AMA. Yes, it does hurt people, leading to suicide in some cases [usc.edu], although it appears precise quantifications of how harmful it is are impossible to come by.

              I'm standing on the sidelines of this one. I don't know whether this is speech that warrants defense or not: it will be directly harmful to some of those who hear it, a

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by scot4875 (542869)

            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

        • by vegiVamp (518171) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @12:35PM (#35589154) Homepage

          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 [wikipedia.org] 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.

      • by johnlcallaway (165670) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @09:33AM (#35586092)
        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.
        • by Kelbear (870538) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @09:48AM (#35586292)

          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.

          • by thedonger (1317951) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @10:41AM (#35587196)

            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?)

          • by uglyduckling (103926) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @10:56AM (#35587544) Homepage
            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.
          • 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.

            Um, no, it actually is outright hostile to people with same sex attractions. The methods that Exodus proposes to handle the negative feelings surrounding same sex attractions are methods that are scientifically proven to leave the psyche of the person worse off, sometimes suicidally so. That is incredibly hostile to Gays, Lesbians, and Bisexuals, and that you do not recognize selling repression, shame, guilt, peer-pressure and thus depression and possibly death as hostile really should tell you something.

            If

        • by raodin (708903) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @10:07AM (#35586546)

          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.

          • by LordLimecat (1103839) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @10:27AM (#35586886)

            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.

        • by RogerWilco (99615)

          I think they should have a category for "controversial apps" and put things like the app discussed in there, but also apps that seem to have pornographic content, etc.
          I think neither should be banned, but just clearly marked.
          For the same reason, I'm also in favour of the .xxx domain, and would prefer if we could also put all the religious fanatics into something similar. .rel maybe?
          They would probably block each other.

          I don't think banning things like this is any good, the only stuff I'd ban is stuff that's

      • by Hatta (162192)

        On the one hand, it's offensive and Apple has a previous precedent of banning things it deems controversial.

        The process of banning what you deem offensive and controversial is itself offensive and controversial. It should be banned.

    • by Lehk228 (705449)
      Detects and blackholes messages with certain bible citations, also disables the alarm and ringer between 4AM and noon on sundays, also causes random tones to play on the ringer between 10 pm saturday and 4am sunday
  • by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @09:15AM (#35585842) Homepage Journal

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

    (I jest, big Apple fan here.)
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Woogiemonger (628172)

      Why would Apple want the vast bulk of their customer base cured? (I jest, big Apple fan here.)

      While there's plenty you can fairly point out wrong with Apple, there's nothing wrong with being gay. I know it was in good humor, and you might very well have gay friends, but comments like this propagate prejudice. The Slashdot community's certainly got its problems, but we're better than this.

    • According to the latest Gallup poll on homosexuality [gallup.com], 48% of the US population believes that homosexuality is immoral. That's more than 44% who believe that doctor-assisted suicide is. Yeah, you could pander to homosexuals and remove the app, and then offend the other half of the country by thus giving implicit support to an activity they consider immoral. That's the problem with "offensive" censorship: everything offends someone. Once you start censoring, you can't really stop until you censor everything.

      • 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.

  • Or the Anti-Bible app? Was that removed too? If yes then Apple is being consistent, but if not then they are not.

  • Hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Patrick May (305709) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @09:19AM (#35585886)
    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?
    • No, I do not stop complaining, despite my own views on homosexuality and the gay movement. The way Apple censors programs on the iPad is a bad thing, regardless of whether or not I personally agree with the premise of the programs that are being censored.
  • by SHP (8391) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @09:21AM (#35585900)

    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.
     

    • Damned if they do, damned if they don't. And whatever they do Slashdot will be there to bitch about it.

    • by revscat (35618)

      I'm on the fence.

      On the one hand, it seems like you are making a slippery slope argument. "If they do this today, then tomorrow it will be worse." Things don't always work out that way, although they certainly do with a fair amount of frequency.

      On the other hand, corporations do have the lion's share of power in reflecting and shaping social norms. This makes me uncomfortable as well.

      Regardless, I think Apple did the right thing in this specific case. Groups like this one have incredibly harmful affects, in

    • by johnlcallaway (165670) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @09:41AM (#35586178)
      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.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 787style (816008) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @09:21AM (#35585902)
    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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      would you support an apple app that said instead of getting vaccinations, just hold the iphone to your forehead for 5 minutes while the app is running?

      of course you wouldn't because its not a replacement for vaccinations, in fact its worse

      the same thing with a "cure" for homosexuality. there is no cure for homosexuality, nor does there need to be one. the point being, this app is a waste of time, and wastes the time of the closeted homosexual who is ashamed of his identity. he has to get over his shame and

      • the point being, this app is a waste of time

        That could easily be said for over 100k apps currently in the app store. That's not a reason to remove them.

      • by ccandreva (409807) <chris@westnet.com> on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @09:54AM (#35586364) Homepage

        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

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

        • 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

          • by sznupi (719324)

            both are malformed in the darwinian sense, the sense that neither, biologically, results in offspring

            That might be a bit too broad statement to make - for one, what is often called pedophilia is really ephebophilia - a perfectly understandable drive, at least on an individual (well, pair...) level ("true" pedophilia being that normal and expected drive going too far). Because also not necessarily on social level! (with how the practice could perhaps, say, destabilize societies; societies on which homo sapiens sapiens builds its strength; hence why it ended up being largely a taboo in successful & influ

          • by slim (1652)

            Worker ants are sterile, so they do not directly result in offspring. However they are not "malformed in the Darwinian sense".

            There are ways to pass on (some of) your genes, other than by impregnating someone. Helping your nephew reach reproductive age would suffice.

          • by LanMan04 (790429)

            both are malformed in the darwinian sense, the sense that neither, biologically, results in offspring

            Ah, I don't think that's true. Just because homosexuality results in *those individuals* not having offspring doesn't mean that it's not good for the group of animals/species. Having some non-mating pairs that don't have offspring of their own obviously has some kind of biological advantage to the species, otherwise we wouldn't see it in the majority of mammals (and not just homosexual "acts", but bonded same-sex pairs).

            I gotcha on pedophilia though. I feel great sympathy for people with that condition, so

      • well, the term 'cure' implies a 'disease' so I can see the straw-man in the argument.
        However, it is possible for people living as homosexuals to transition to living as heterosexuals happily. There are many recorded cases of people doing just that.
        So , is it freedom of speech to inform people of what is true? Freedom of speech to tell them they may have choice? you are basing your argument on poor science.

        Here is one simple example of someone who once lived the 'gay' lifestyle but does not do so anymore.
        h [peoplecanchange.com]

    • by BetterSense (1398915) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @09:39AM (#35586154)
      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.
    • Because you are not allowed to publically question the orthodoxy about sexuality. ie that it is entirely genetic, due to fundamental differences in brain anatomy, and people do not go from straight to gay or vice versa (they might be bi, but society isn't as accepting of that as it is straight homosexuality).

      When you actually go and look at the science to support this there is about as much as for political preference being genetic. If you dare to point out that the idea that if it is due to differences in

    • by TheGatesofBill (637809) <sunookitsune@kitsunet.org> on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @09:50AM (#35586316) Homepage
      The thing is, it was never called "Gay Cure". It was listed in the App Store as "Exodus International".
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I may not like Apple, but this is the game you play when a single private entity controls a distribution channel.

    Granted, I really don't like the app or it's message either. So this is kind of a win/win from my perspective.

  • by LoyalOpposition (168041) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @09:27AM (#35585986)

    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

  • by aaaaaaargh! (1150173) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @09:27AM (#35585992)

    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).

    • by goombah99 (560566)

      Oh boo hoo. What a lame excuse. You can't buy strippers or a rub and tug in the mall or the grocery story. do you should produce whole salers boycot Kroger cause the restrict what they are allowed to put on the shelves?

  • by Nexus7 (2919)

    The modus operandi of the nut-jobs is becoming very effective. They create a "gay cure" app. Thousands of sane people get indignant, sign petitions, etc. and get it taken down. So now a portion of indignation, enthusiasm to participate in causes, proclivity to donate to causes - such as say 'stop bullying of gay school kids' - has been used up in protesting an app. The app is much cheaper to produce than say, an anti-gay-marriage ballot initiative.

    By the time the nut-jobs get around to ballot initiatives on

  • you have a choice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Twillerror (536681) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @09:29AM (#35586014) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • I really don't care about the specific app. I just want to know why Apple should remove apps just because they are offensive. I can understand if an app were to be removed because it is illegal (and only removed from those areas where it is illegal). I cannot understand why Apple should remove apps just because they are offensive.

    Censorship is wrong, whatever the reason. Apple harms all developers and users by doing this.

  • Never! nyuk-nyuk-nyuk.

    also how could an iphone app cure the gay and why couldn't the company have made an app that cures cancer?

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

    Well thank you, Taco, for calling everybody who doesn't approve of homosexuality a bigot. Have you, or any of the other homosexuality-supporters, ever considered that there are more than two sides to this? You don't have to fully 100% approve or disaprove of homosexuality, and as a Catholic I take offense when being labled as one of them.

    The Catholic Church knows that there's a difference between homosexual attraction and homosexual acts, something that many people on "both" sides often forget. Homosexual a

    • 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

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

        There is the side that recognizes that there is no reliable evidence that homosexuality is anything more than a preference / attraction brought on by a combination of several factors, environment and upbringing among them. Noone has given a good, solid, scientific, and defendable explanation as to its exact cause.

        And society has generally recognized that supporting non-traditional families is a bad thing, which is one of the reasons that homosexuality has historically had very little acceptance (not that I

    • by SlashDread (38969)

      "sexual preference, is influenced by a variety of factors; most important of all of those factors is conditioning (like, allowing/encouraging yourself to think homosexual thoughts, or hanging around with homosexuals, for example)"

      This from the scientific arm of the Vatican. Bigots are always other people to a bigot eh?

    • by slim (1652) <john@hart n u p.net> on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @10:04AM (#35586502) Homepage

      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.

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

        The definition of bigot [wikimedia.org] is very broad, and it appears that you misunderstand it. With your definition of bigotry, I could call you a bigot for disliking pepperoni on pizza (even if you had good reasons). What the definition really means is that bigots are people who don't listen to reason or argument at all and stick to their opinions like glue. I believe I showed very clearly that I know every single "pro-LGBT" argument very well. Am I not allowed to dislike what I personally feel is disgusting? Homosexual

    • by girlintraining (1395911) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @10:04AM (#35586512)

      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kohath (38547)

      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.

    • by I am Jack's username (528712) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @10:17AM (#35586720)

      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?

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

      Well thank you, Taco, for calling everybody who doesn't approve of homosexuality a bigot. Have you, or any of the other homosexuality-supporters, ever considered that there are more than two sides to this?

      The difference though with the Catholic opinion is that we believe that people who experience severe homosexual attraction are called to chastity.

      I see your Gay Chastity and Raise you on Catholic Sex abuse cases [wikipedia.org].

      Many pro-LGBT people with misunderstandings of the Catholic religion (such as lumping it together with all of the other Christian faiths [wikimedia.org]) think that it's just "forbidden" and "sinful" and an "abomination" for little reason, while the real reason why it's sinful to the Church is that it denies the life-giving aspect of sexuality entirely.

      No you're more likely to be equated with Mormons who have to deny the existence of True Hermaphrodites [wikipedia.org] in order to justify their view that "The Gay" can be cured, or that it must be suppressed (see Chastity) [google.com]. That and the catholic view and Mormon view on woman and the priesthood is oddly similar.

      For more information, read any of the many books or articles out there summarizing Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body; the Catholic Church's opinion on sexuality is a lot more reasonable than many people make it sound like.

      I would have trusted his words more if he had done something reasonable when the Catholic pedophile priests were exposed. Like maybe a full blown

    • Well thank you, Taco, for calling everybody who doesn't approve of homosexuality a bigot. Have you, or any of the other homosexuality-supporters, ever considered that there are more than two sides to this? You don't have to fully 100% approve or disaprove of homosexuality, and as a Catholic I take offense when being labled as one of them.

      The Catholic Church knows that there's a difference between homosexual attraction and homosexual acts, something that many people on "both" sides often forget.

      My hat's off to the Catholic Church for trying so hard to keep reason and logic in the discussion despite being in a position of centralized power and authority. Seriously, kudos to all the popes I've listened to in my lifetime anyway. That job can't be getting any easier over the years for sure.

      Now, the way I see it is you're trying to find technical reasons to justify a position that your two thousand year old book takes.
      Because... your two thousand year old book says so. You might try to disguise all

  • Now all gays who want to switch to being straight must use Android!
    (no, they don't need to download any apps. Owning an Android phone alone will make them manly enough.)

    (also, if that app worked, wouldn't it be a threat to bulk of Apple user base?)

  • by eratosthene (605331) <eratosthene @ g m a i l .com> on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @09:51AM (#35586326) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • by wcrowe (94389) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @09:54AM (#35586360)

    Now what am I supposed to do if I suddenly wake up some morning and discover I'm gay?

  • by EQ (28372) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @10:35AM (#35587066) Homepage Journal
    And what they wanted was: Attention. Streisand Effect. Apple, YHBT.
  • by vanyel (28049) * on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @11:28AM (#35588078) Journal

    The one legitimate argument for Apple's draconian system is to protect the consumer. An app like this is just as much a fraud as one claiming it can cure cancer, and if they want even the slightest credibility... On the other, they blew that by letting it in in the first place.

Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing. -- Roy L. Ash, ex-president, Litton Industries

Working...