Seems silly

I am not even close to a man of god but why can people not share what they think with out so much hate and anger from closed minded people? You want to help people not be gay because you think it is "wrong" thats cool go ahead and try. If you want to make/encourage people gay because you feel its ok to be gay thats fine too. Why cant we just grow up and be adults about these things?

Apple should just ignore such things because it will never hurt their sales and it gives them more coverage. Apple also seems to be a gay friendly company however so they will most likly ban the app which is in their right to do so as a company.

What I don't like about this is Apple's walled garden approach. I don't like these guys' message, but I'm more annoyed by the idea that Apple can and probably will censor them. Once Apple set up their system so that they could censor things, they opened themselves up to being asked to censor things. If Apple can censor anti-gay apps, what's to stop them from censoring pro-gay apps?

What I don't like is the fact that people think apps are a holder for content. Why do we need "pro-gay" or "anti-gay" apps? Apps should be a repository of functionality, not content. If you want to put up content, make a website, not an app. The whole idea is dumb. An app is something like a word processor or an MP3 player, not a newspaper or website for a religious group.

Are you saying apps aren't a form of expression? Or that they shouldn't be? Games like xBill can certainly have a message, right? Are you saying that nobody should port xBill to the iPhone or to Android? Or for that matter, should Apple ban Monopoly, since Monopoly was originally intended to make a point about monopoly of land ownership? How about apps that let you keep track of how many calories you're eating, since that carries the message that you should care about such things? Or apps that help you memorize scripture?

Functionality is content.

No, I'm saying that for a huge number of apps, they can be done just as well on the web. If they would the issues of censorship and app store inclusion just disappear.

Some, but not all. I've not used this app, obviously, but it looks like it's some combination of a verse-for-the-day app and possibly a kick-smoking app. You wouldn't be able to get the same kind of functionality from a non-interactive webpage. (As I write this, a Koran-verse-for-the-day program on my laptop is bugging me. I think I'll turn it off...)

As for an example of a possible 'pro-gay' app, how about a dating service app that allows for same-sex or transgender matchups? Could you really get the same functionality from a webpage? How would we feel if Apple banned such an app?

Well, ere ares dating/hookup sites and some of them have apps. But my point is that most of these simple as can be done on the web. This is certainly true for the Exodus app, and a huge number of the other apps which have been banned by Apple could have been done as web apps just as easily.

They could be done as webapps, but there would be some difference in functionality. A word processor can be done as a webapp - look at google documents. An mp3 player could be done as a webapp, but there might be problems with the legality of it (what happens if you store pirated mp3s on the company's server?). Pandora might be given as an example of a legal mp3 player webapp. I think you would agree that there is a difference in the functionality of openoffice vs. google docs, xmms or winamp vs. pandora. A verse-of-the-day app is considerably different than going to a webpage for a verse-of-the-day.

The walled garden model simply reduces the choices available to consumers and developers. It might be the case that web-based apps can get around the garden's wall, but that is still going to affect how we use smartphones.

Something these religious cults should keep in mind is that "God Never Makes a Mistake." Hence, the creation of someone gay, black, asian, disabled etc...was for a reason. Just learn to love whom is around you and move on!

Unfortunately, 'ex-gay' groups could argue that God did have a purpose - by giving the person something to overcome. According to them, being tempted by other members of your sex isn't a sin, yielding to the temptation is.

Invalid argument.

How do you then rationalise clearly documented cases of homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom?

That's just another nail in the coffin of Creationism, and proof the bible isn't the 'word' of any deity. Otherwise, why would animals, supposedly with no free will, be created gay?

You say that this argument is invalid? Let's take a closer look at it. The argument is an a explanatory one, and the explanandum is that some humans have a homosexual drive. Here's how I reconstruct the argument: P1. A certain class of God-given properties are given to us for the purpose of overcoming them. P2. Homosexuality is one of these properties. C. Homosexuality is given to us for the purpose of overcoming it.

Your objection is that there are cases of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. This doesn't seem to be saying that the above argument is invalid, but objecting to either P1 or P2. If you are right, then the argument is valid, but unsound.

The ex-gays would probably reply to your objection like this: Why do animals rape and murder their conspecifics (which there are also clearly documented cases of)? Just because animals don't have free will (a claim I wouldn't endorse, but the group(s) we're talking about might), it doesn't follow that their behavior is a good model for how God wants humans to behave. Ex-gays, creationists, and Christians in general might need to give an different explanation of immoral animal behavior, since P1 doesn't apply, but it doesn't make their explanation of human desires invalid or necessarily unsound.

A 'pro-gay' Christian would probably object to this argument by denying P2 - that homosexual actions are not in the same class as murder and rape. Anti-gay Christian groups support P2 by citing 'clobber verses.'

There are no "ex-gays" only people in denial, people shamed by doing things not usually their behaviour and out their faces on narcotics, or utter hypocrites. And, quit inventing idiotic words that show you as an inept apologist for some fag bashing "church".

As "God" is my co-pilot, we crashed in the Andes and I had to eat him to survive; you fail utterly at presenting an argument to support your worldview. Have a nice diurnal anomaly!

"The world will not know peace until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest".

Rationalize ancient proscriptions against homosexuality as the generally ignorant observing that anal sex carries a far higher risk of spreading STIs. Would "God" not actually be that honest to the one species granted 'free will'?

"There are no "ex-gays" only people in denial, people shamed by doing things not usually their behaviour and out their faces on narcotics, or utter hypocrites. And, quit inventing idiotic words that show you as an inept apologist for some fag bashing "church"."

I quite agree with you on your first point. I'm not sure what you mean by inventing words. Are talking about "explanandum" or "pro-gay"? I assure you, explanandum is a word I didn't invent, you may wish to look it up. If you're talking about 'pro-gay', do you have some other term for "pro-gay" Christian you would like to use? There is a reason I left it in scare quotes, because to me it sounds as silly as calling a Christian who doesn't follow kosher laws 'pro-shrimp' or 'pro-cheeseburger,' but I'm not sure what other term I could use.

Have I said anything that would give you any reason to believe that I am myself a Christian of any kind? As it happens, I'm an atheist and a Discordian. However, it might be easier to convince members of the ex-gay movement to stop bashing homosexuals than to convince them that God is dead.

"Rationalize ancient proscriptions against homosexuality as the generally ignorant observing that anal sex carries a far higher risk of spreading STIs." Given that some of the clobber verses are right next to and have the same form as the kosher law verses, I doubt that there is even that much of a rationale for said ancient proscriptions. Why didn't God warn use not to eat shrimp because of mercury poisoning? What scientific rationale is there for not eating cheeseburgers?

no gay is BORN a faggot, they were brought up that way by mommy and daddy. Homosexuality is WRONG. 156.8.251.250 (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)