Seems silly

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.