Apple Brainwashes Gay Cure App from iTunes

[Grey_Wolf_Leader]

You don't have a right not to be offended

You DO have a right to refuse service. Apple exercised theirs. Deal with it.

Apple may reserve the right to do what they want, but they have a moral obligation to respect the right to free speech and, without any government involvement mind you, permit those who may offend people to have their say.

After all, the right to free speech was meant to protect speech people didn't like. Not stuff people didn't already agree with.

No, actually, they don't, and it wasn't. Freedom of speech grants you the inherent human right to express an opinion without fear of legal or governmental recrimination. It doesn't obligate the rest of the world to accommodate, acknowledge, or disseminate your opinion, speaking both practically and morally.

You have the right to say whatever you like in my place of business without fear of being arrested -- but I have the right to ask you to leave.

You certainly have the right to ask me to leave, but I reserve the right to speak my peace before leaving, my friend. Or even to practice civil disobedience and refuse to leave.

I again say it is not a governmental thing. It is a personal moral obligation. Apple may own the store, but they are practicing discrimination if they do not allow people with potentially offensive views to make them known. They don't legally have to carry the app. But they are responsible for not letting someone sell their product.

Everyone should permit each other to speak freely, not because the government says so, but because as sons and daughters of God, it is their inherent right. Governments don't grant rights, God does.

"If the government can give rights, it can take them away."

 

[mikespoff]

Later, in a statement released today, Chambers further complained about his app being removed. "We are extremely disappointed to learn of Apple's decision to deny equal representation in the public square," he said. "Discrimination of thought and belief obstructs essential dialogue and authentic diversity." Chambers goes on to point out that the App Store contains all kinds of Apps dedicated to celebrating LGBT culture.

....Go fuck yourself. Really? And people wonder why I am so harsh on religion. I cant even begin to say how much this blatant hypocracy angers me! Though not nice, those words I used are a held back response.

-sigh-

Care to clarify? I'm not seeing any hypocrisy here - he supports free speech and an open forum for discussion. Where's the problem?

 

[teknoarcanist]

You don't have a right not to be offended

You DO have a right to refuse service. Apple exercised theirs. Deal with it.

Apple may reserve the right to do what they want, but they have a moral obligation to respect the right to free speech and, without any government involvement mind you, permit those who may offend people to have their say.

After all, the right to free speech was meant to protect speech people didn't like. Not stuff people didn't already agree with.

No, actually, they don't, and it wasn't. Freedom of speech grants you the inherent human right to express an opinion without fear of legal or governmental recrimination. It doesn't obligate the rest of the world to accommodate, acknowledge, or disseminate your opinion, speaking both practically and morally.

You have the right to say whatever you like in my place of business without fear of being arrested -- but I have the right to ask you to leave.

You certainly have the right to ask me to leave, but I reserve the right to speak my peace before leaving, my friend. Or even to practice civil disobedience and refuse to leave.

I again say it is not a governmental thing. It is a personal moral obligation. Apple may own the store, but they are practicing discrimination if they do not allow people with potentially offensive views to make them known. They don't legally have to carry the app. But they are responsible for not letting someone sell their product.

Everyone should permit each other to speak freely, not because the government says so, but because as sons and daughters of God, it is their inherent right. Governments don't grant rights, God does.

"If the government can give rights, it can take them away."

You um....you don't have the 'right' to practice civil disobedience.

Y'know.

Because it's engaging in activities deemed illegal?

Because it's civil fucking disobedience??

You CAN do it, sure (much like I CAN throw feces at my neighbor's window) but you don't have a legally protected 'right' to.

And why should Apple be morally obligated to disseminate material both it and its customers consider discriminatory? Isn't that impinging upon their freedom of speech? Am I obligated to carry cookies shaped like racial caricatures in my bakery just because someone walked in with a bag and asked me to sell them? Is Barnes and Noble morally obligated to sell the KKK handbook? Is a Christian bookstore morally obligated to carry books of satanist scripture?

ONCE AGAIN: As a legal, ethical, moral, and philisophical principal, 'free speech' means AND HAS ALWAYS MEANT that you have the god-given right to say what you want without being arrested or killed for it. It DOESN'T mean anyone else has to listen, and it SURE AS HELL doesn't mean a business must or even should carry your product and espouse your views if it doesn't wish to.

 

[Saikonate]

Ah, the old "Bible is Evil" accusation.

The book itself isn't evil, it's just filled with absurdities, and directives to do that which I would argue is certainly evil.

How do I put this? Christ explained that the law laid down in the Law of Moses was not the "Higher Law" he came to institute during his ministry. The Law of Moses was the law given because that was the law the Jews were ready for, but not the Higher Law Christ gave. The Higher Law was the original Ten Commandments Moses brought down from the mountain, but broke when he saw the Israelite worshiping an idol. He knew they were not ready for the Higher Law of the Lord, so he returned again and sought from the Lord the law which would be most appropriate for them at the time.

There is also a difference between the secular laws laid down in the Law of Moses, the laws that would be governmental in nature, and the ones which would be individual and behavioral. The Ten Commandments were the second type, but the governmental laws were the ones in Deuteronomy. These laws only applied to the ancient Israelites and the ancient government of Israel. These are not the secular laws of our modern era.

God instructed moses to create new, identical tablets after Moses shattered the first two. You're slathering interpretation onto what is actually written about, and the "they weren't ready for the higher law" explanation is an awfully thin explanation given that the second set of commandments was created immediately after.

Assuming I buy that explanation, then the Ten Commandments are all that we should be concerned about, and the Ten Commandments don't mention homosexuality at any point. Interpreting "adultery" to mean homosexuality is again injecting your own interpretation to what is actually there.

So I'll go ahead and just accept that the laws of Deuteronomy don't apply now for whatever reason. That raises more questions though. Even if that is the case, stoning anyone who is raped in the city and doesn't call out loud enough to be heard is an evil and wrong thing no matter who told you to do it or what society it applied to. It's like saying "yeah, people had slaves in the 1800s, but that was just the time." It doesn't matter what the law said, it was still wrong. How on earth can you be comfortable deriving your morality from the same supreme being that told his followers to murder anyone who thought differently than they did? In what context is that ever just? I'm not asking you to quote me scripture here, because it doesn't matter what the scripture says. Think with the brain god allegedly gave you. Any way you slice it, that's wrong.

Either way, Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses, including these secular laws saying to "slay this man for blaspheming the faith" with his Atonement, Death, and Resurrection, which is why Christians do not practice it anymore. This is one of the fundamental differences between the beliefs Jews and Christians.

Again, if the law of Moses is fulfilled and the Ten Commandments are all that matters, homosexuality is a-okay.

 

[Saelune]

Later, in a statement released today, Chambers further complained about his app being removed. "We are extremely disappointed to learn of Apple's decision to deny equal representation in the public square," he said. "Discrimination of thought and belief obstructs essential dialogue and authentic diversity." Chambers goes on to point out that the App Store contains all kinds of Apps dedicated to celebrating LGBT culture.

....Go fuck yourself. Really? And people wonder why I am so harsh on religion. I cant even begin to say how much this blatant hypocracy angers me! Though not nice, those words I used are a held back response.

-sigh-

Care to clarify? I'm not seeing any hypocrisy here - he supports free speech and an open forum for discussion. Where's the problem?

When Christians beg for tolerance whole promoting bigotted views of others, usually LGBT people, it just angers me due to the hypocracy of it. Asking for what you wont give. Christians tend to be one of the top discriminators of thought and belief, so to hear one who clearly is not so open-minded be mad at getting back what he gives pisses me off.

 

[mikespoff]

Freedom of speech, even if it's speech you don't agree with. Apple caving is fail.

However, free enterprise is free enterprise they have a right to deny or allow whatever they want.

Sure - it's just a pity that Apple could have the balls to say that. I'd rather that they didn't offer any explanation than try to push a silly line like "There's nothing objectionable in this app but a lot of people are mad about it anyway, so we'll pretend that it's offensive."

 

[Saikonate]

Don't these Christians have better things to do than to tell people how bad they are for making their own decisions. I think they ought to look up thet Jesus fellow so many people have been talking about.

I've always liked saying that Jesus was awesome, it's his followers I can't stand.

for all it tensive purposes

The phrase you're looking for is "for all intents and purposes" - sorry, that's a pet peeve. What is an intensive purpose?

 

[Timmehexas]

Without commenting on whether it was right or wrong to remove this app, you have to admit if there was any kind of app called "Curing stupidity, in other words religion" these groups would be the first people screaming and waving their hands around about bigotry and ordering its removal.

 

[drisky]

Don't these Christians have better things to do than to tell people how bad they are for making their own decisions. I think they ought to look up thet Jesus fellow so many people have been talking about.

I've always liked saying that Jesus was awesome, it's his followers I can't stand.

for all it tensive purposes

The phrase you're looking for is "for all intents and purposes" - sorry, that's a pet peeve. What is an intensive purpose?

I think the real question is what an "it tensive purpose", I really screwed that one up. An intensive purpose is the meaning of life I guess, a purpose so intensive it take precedence of all others.

 

[mikespoff]

I always love how oragnizations like this say that they want equal rights to take away the rights of other people.

By "organisations" you're referring to Change.org, right?

 

[Saikonate]

I think the real question is what an "it tensive purpose", I really screwed that one up. An intensive purpose is the meaning of life I guess, a purpose so intensive it take precedence of all others.

"For all purposes so intensive they take precedence over all others, it is a disorder..." doesn't make sense any way except syntactically. "For all intents and purposes" is the expression, stop using that other one.

edit: VVV sweet, I guess I won my "that guy" badge tonight.

 

[drisky]

I think the real question is what an "it tensive purpose", I really screwed that one up. An intensive purpose is the meaning of life I guess, a purpose so intensive it take precedence of all others.

"For all purposes so intensive they take precedence over all others, it is a disorder..." doesn't make sense any way except syntactically. "For all intents and purposes" is the expression, stop using that other one.

I know I used the phrase wrong, I just wanted to take a crack at defining anyways, for fun.

 

[Grey_Wolf_Leader]

*snip*

Why do the laws of physics need a reason to do anything? Without sentience, reason doesn't exist, any search for a motive before humanity is bound to end in failure. Is it really so horrible to think that there is no purpose, no reason for us to be here? I know it's quite a blow to the ego, but I find that a universe without an underlying purpose is strangely comforting. It means things aren't going wrong because there was never a way for things to go in the first place.

As far as homosexuality fulfilling a biological purpose, we do lots of things that do not make sense from a purely survivalist instinct. Maybe homosexuality is an unconscious response to overpopulation, giving people a way to vent their hormones without making more people. Hell, some animals, like bonobo chimps, are really gay. Why should sex only form bonds between men and women?

Free speech is a good point, but Apple isn't a civic institution. If they think it'll hurt sales, they have every right to pull the app. People should be able to voice their opinion that homosexuality is a disease, but if apple doesn't want to lose money to give them a soapbox, they don't have to. That's what the Internet is for.

I didn't say it is horrible for there to be no reason, I said that it is illogical and therefore should not happen if there is not a reason. All of Science is based on the premise that things happen because of reasons. Actually, I think the word I'm looking for is Cause. All things do not happen without a cause. This is not semantics, this is basic logic.

A Universe in its current state, filled with matter that has been organized according to laws with no underlying meaning, meaning "Cause" or "Originator" is impossible.

Things only go objectively "wrong" when people do wrong things. Right and wrong are concepts of Morality, not how the Universe operates.

I think it will also help if you understand that I am neither an Evangelical nor a Catholic. I do not believe in an Original Sin which "corrupted" a perfect world. Adam and Eve's sin only made them knowledgeable of the difference between good and evil (gave them a conscious) and spiritually cut them off from God (meaning they could not directly communicate with him anymore).
The Potential for Evil has always existed (it must for there for there to be a truly free being with the capacity to make moral choices).

So the Universe has never been a "safe" place.

When it comes to Sexuality, we have a fundamental difference in where we think Sex comes from.

I believe it was created by God. Sex forms bonds because this is how God designed it. Why? Because Gender (and opposites) are a fundamental aspect of Reality. We were always male and female, and we shall be. Note I did not say that homosexual couples cannot form bonds using sex, but that its purpose is to form bonds between heterosexual couples.

You believe it came from evolution. But this does not make sense, as dumb matter does not have the capacity to create even a single celled organism. Dump all of the dumb energy you want into a system, but matter does not have the level of intelligence required to assemble and kick-start life, let alone make decisions about biological functions which must be first encoded into a life form's DNA so they are present when Adaptation makes a choice.

 

[Baldr]

As a Ornithologist, the app Angry Birds is offensive. I'm am starting a campaign to get it removed from the App Market.

 

[lumenadducere]

Bahah. It's ludicrous how they complain about discrimination when their app itself was incredibly discriminatory. It contained misinformation and blatant lies, and flat-out stated that their own ideological viewpoint was the only way to achieve a cure for something that doesn't need curing. A cure. Thus equating being gay to a disease or illness, something inherently wrong and foreign that is harmful and pathologic.

People who don't see why it had to be removed, or those stating that all gay and lesbian apps should be removed as well are missing that point. If a gay or lesbian app equates Christianity to being a sickness and something that can only be fixed by being a homosexual, then yes, that should be removed as well. And if it also makes false statements about how Christianity hurts people then it also deserves to be removed. But if it doesn't then you can't remove it just on the basis of it being "equal" to do so. Exodus International doesn't seem to comprehend that lying and being discriminatory aren't acceptable under the guise of being "equal" and that there was a reason for their app being removed. I really hope that the users here are capable of making such a distinction.

 

[Grey_Wolf_Leader]

You don't have a right not to be offended

You DO have a right to refuse service. Apple exercised theirs. Deal with it.

Apple may reserve the right to do what they want, but they have a moral obligation to respect the right to free speech and, without any government involvement mind you, permit those who may offend people to have their say.

After all, the right to free speech was meant to protect speech people didn't like. Not stuff people didn't already agree with.

No, actually, they don't, and it wasn't. Freedom of speech grants you the inherent human right to express an opinion without fear of legal or governmental recrimination. It doesn't obligate the rest of the world to accommodate, acknowledge, or disseminate your opinion, speaking both practically and morally.

You have the right to say whatever you like in my place of business without fear of being arrested -- but I have the right to ask you to leave.

You certainly have the right to ask me to leave, but I reserve the right to speak my peace before leaving, my friend. Or even to practice civil disobedience and refuse to leave.

I again say it is not a governmental thing. It is a personal moral obligation. Apple may own the store, but they are practicing discrimination if they do not allow people with potentially offensive views to make them known. They don't legally have to carry the app. But they are responsible for not letting someone sell their product.

Everyone should permit each other to speak freely, not because the government says so, but because as sons and daughters of God, it is their inherent right. Governments don't grant rights, God does.

"If the government can give rights, it can take them away."

You um....you don't have the 'right' to practice civil disobedience.

Y'know.

Because it's engaging in activities deemed illegal?

Because it's civil fucking disobedience??

You CAN do it, sure (much like I CAN throw feces at my neighbor's window) but you don't have a legally protected 'right' to.

And why should Apple be morally obligated to disseminate material both it and its customers consider discriminatory? Isn't that impinging upon their freedom of speech? Am I obligated to carry cookies shaped like racial caricatures in my bakery just because someone walked in with a bag and asked me to sell them? Is Barnes and Noble morally obligated to sell the KKK handbook? Is a Christian bookstore morally obligated to carry books of satanist scripture?

ONCE AGAIN: As a legal, ethical, moral, and philisophical principal, 'free speech' means AND HAS ALWAYS MEANT that you have the god-given right to say what you want without being arrested or killed for it. It DOESN'T mean anyone else has to listen, and it SURE AS HELL doesn't mean a business must or even should carry your product and espouse your views if it doesn't wish to.

Temper my friend. Watch your language. It is unbecoming to a civil discussion. Anyway, yes, you have a right to be civilly disobedience when the government has trespassed upon the rights of men. Thomas Jefferson put it best when he said that it is not only the people's right, but their duty to throw off the ties that bind them to a government that infringes upon their rights. What about Martin Luther King's struggle against racism? You're going to tell me blacks didn't have the right to sit down and refuse to move because they could not vote freely? Just because it is legally illegal, doesn't mean that it isn't a right, or that somehow the government is in the right to stop them. What was that again about homosexuals having a "right" to marry, even though they legally do not?

My point is that rights transcend all forms of human government because they are "above" them.

The Freedom of Speech means that you have the right to say your peace. No one can be force to listen, and I never said they could. At the same time however, individuals should be fair if they are going to give someone free speech.

If a radio show has a conservative speaker, it would only be fair to have that speaker invite people from the other side of the aisle on to allow them to defend themselves. There is no legal reason for him to do this, but he does it because it respects the other side's Freedom to Speak. By shoving this App off their store, Apple is in effect letting the GLBTs have their say with their apps, while at the same time ignoring the opposing side's offering.
Let me make it very clear. No, they are not under a legal obligation to do this, but it is showing a lack of respect towards beliefs which the makers of this app hold dear.
When I say a moral obligation, I mean it is their responsibility to make the personal choice to let them sell their product, no coercion from anyone else.
Furthermore, comparing an app that aims to "cure" Gays, can hardly be compared to racial or religious materials. Why? Because homosexuality is a behavior and a culture, not an inherent trait or fundamental religious beliefs.

 

[Sylocat]

No, Mr. Chambers, you will not get equal representation in the public square, for the very simple reason that equal representation is not actually what you desire. You desire to crush all other points of view.

And no, I am not being hyperbolic. And no, I do NOT agree that all viewpoints are valid and that everyone is entitled to their say. For a simple reason: Advocating for the "curing" of homosexuals is not a point of view. It is an attempt to curtail the rights and freedom of a group. Let me spell it out for you, nice and simply: You cannot have a reasonable debate when the autonomy of one of the participants is in question.

 

[Grey_Wolf_Leader]

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

All of your philosophical talk may be true or not. That is irrelevant to the argument. My question is why is your beliefs on life and creation a valid position to legislate from? I personally am not an atheist. Far from it. But just because I believe in a God, doesn't mean I should force that belief onto other people. You say a homosexual act is wrong because it does not promote procreation. I say, or some hypothetical person says, it harms no one, so why is it wrong?
As for the matter at hand, Apple has no such obligation to anyone. Their primary motivation for existing is to make money. They have the right to cater to whatever demographics they chose and can take away their market as a soap box for whatever people whom they decide not to business with. The same reason why a site can decide to stop hosting a school shooting mod, why Microsoft can ban people from its online service for inappropriate names and content, why the Escapist can ban me for admitting to piracy. People can run into the streets and proclaim whatever nonsense they like, but companies don't have to cater to their nonsense. Free speech only applies to what the government can and cannot do to you, not as to how companies have to arbitrarily treat people.

It is a valid point if my belief is the dominate belief of the people who elect officials to office. Remember, men are not purely rational creatures, we have beliefs and rules which have no basis in logic, but we vote on and make law because it conforms to our beliefs.

In the voting booth, people vote to accept or reject laws put forth, regardless of their origin. By public authority, we choose who's rules shall become law.

As far as Homosexuality is concerned, it is wrong because the person who is harmed the most is primarily the person doing it him/herself, not to mention their family members who are pained, shocked, and disheartened by their behavior. Now does this mean there should be laws against it? I wouldn't say so. But I would say that it still is wrong because it still harms people.

Apple's moral obligation is to be fair to everyone who offers products for them to sell. Sure, they may reserve the right to determine what they can sell, but they must balance that right with the responsibility of not discriminating against a position just because it may "offend" someone.

 

[teknoarcanist]

You don't have a right not to be offended

You DO have a right to refuse service. Apple exercised theirs. Deal with it.

Apple may reserve the right to do what they want, but they have a moral obligation to respect the right to free speech and, without any government involvement mind you, permit those who may offend people to have their say.

After all, the right to free speech was meant to protect speech people didn't like. Not stuff people didn't already agree with.

No, actually, they don't, and it wasn't. Freedom of speech grants you the inherent human right to express an opinion without fear of legal or governmental recrimination. It doesn't obligate the rest of the world to accommodate, acknowledge, or disseminate your opinion, speaking both practically and morally.

You have the right to say whatever you like in my place of business without fear of being arrested -- but I have the right to ask you to leave.

You certainly have the right to ask me to leave, but I reserve the right to speak my peace before leaving, my friend. Or even to practice civil disobedience and refuse to leave.

I again say it is not a governmental thing. It is a personal moral obligation. Apple may own the store, but they are practicing discrimination if they do not allow people with potentially offensive views to make them known. They don't legally have to carry the app. But they are responsible for not letting someone sell their product.

Everyone should permit each other to speak freely, not because the government says so, but because as sons and daughters of God, it is their inherent right. Governments don't grant rights, God does.

"If the government can give rights, it can take them away."

You um....you don't have the 'right' to practice civil disobedience.

Y'know.

Because it's engaging in activities deemed illegal?

Because it's civil fucking disobedience??

You CAN do it, sure (much like I CAN throw feces at my neighbor's window) but you don't have a legally protected 'right' to.

And why should Apple be morally obligated to disseminate material both it and its customers consider discriminatory? Isn't that impinging upon their freedom of speech? Am I obligated to carry cookies shaped like racial caricatures in my bakery just because someone walked in with a bag and asked me to sell them? Is Barnes and Noble morally obligated to sell the KKK handbook? Is a Christian bookstore morally obligated to carry books of satanist scripture?

ONCE AGAIN: As a legal, ethical, moral, and philisophical principal, 'free speech' means AND HAS ALWAYS MEANT that you have the god-given right to say what you want without being arrested or killed for it. It DOESN'T mean anyone else has to listen, and it SURE AS HELL doesn't mean a business must or even should carry your product and espouse your views if it doesn't wish to.

Temper my friend. Watch your language. It is unbecoming to a civil discussion. Anyway, yes, you have a right to be civilly disobedience when the government has trespassed upon the rights of men. Thomas Jefferson put it best when he said that it is not only the people's right, but their duty to throw off the ties that bind them to a government that infringes upon their rights. What about Martin Luther King's struggle against racism? You're going to tell me blacks didn't have the right to sit down and refuse to move because they could not vote freely? Just because it is legally illegal, doesn't mean that it isn't a right, or that somehow the government is in the right to stop them. What was that again about homosexuals having a "right" to marry, even though they legally do not?

My point is that rights transcend all forms of human government because they are "above" them.

The Freedom of Speech means that you have the right to say your peace. No one can be force to listen, and I never said they could. At the same time however, individuals should be fair if they are going to give someone free speech.

If a radio show has a conservative speaker, it would only be fair to have that speaker invite people from the other side of the aisle on to allow them to defend themselves. There is no legal reason for him to do this, but he does it because it respects the other side's Freedom to Speak. By shoving this App off their store, Apple is in effect letting the GLBTs have their say with their apps, while at the same time ignoring the opposing side's offering.
Let me make it very clear. No, they are not under a legal obligation to do this, but it is showing a lack of respect towards beliefs which the makers of this app hold dear.
When I say a moral obligation, I mean it is their responsibility to make the personal choice to let them sell their product, no coercion from anyone else.
Furthermore, comparing an app that aims to "cure" Gays, can hardly be compared to racial or religious materials. Why? Because homosexuality is a behavior and a culture, not an inherent trait or fundamental religious beliefs.

I'm not sure gay pride apps are equivalent to apps which discriminate against gays. One expresses inward support. The other expresses outward condemnation. It's the difference between a 'church carpool hook-up' app and a 'fix christians' app.

And if you think homosexuality is a choice, I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. 100% of gay people will tell you they had no choice in the matter -- excluding those who have had their thoughts programmed by 'gay cure' camps and the like.

But why am I even bothering to argue? No one ever convinces anyone of anything on the internet anyway. The only thing I can say, as a brother in spirit, is get yourself out into the world and get some ACTUAL experience with gay persons. Until then, you're not qualified to speak.

My brother is gay, and I'm a Christian, and I see no discrepancy between the two. And it angers, saddens, and distresses me when people express the opinion, which is biologically and scientifically inaccurate, that my brother is diseased and needs cured. I can see no Christian defense for this view save ignorance and unexamined acceptance of church teachings.

And I'm done with this thread because it's making me grit my teeth. Don't bother replying.

 

[Grey_Wolf_Leader]

*snip*

And that relives you of your contradiction, for all it tensive purposes a disorder is that needs to be fixed for the health of the person. So like a disease you should believe that the church should cure them so they can live happy and normal lives. But thats not how it works, people don't get cured of homosexuality by the power of God. So when the cure doesn't work what are they left with? They end up torn between who they are and their spirituality. And that ends up with them either stoping their believe in God or going down the road depression and suicide, and thats a bad thing.

Homosexuality is a problem with no easy solution. Suicide and depression are not the right way.

The command God gave to his children is simple. No sex outside of marriage, complete fidelity within Marriage. This standard applies equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Problem is, homosexuals do not want to marry, nor is Marriage a "cure" or "therapy" for it.
This is not unfair, as heterosexuals who remain unmarried all their lives must not have sex either. The same applies to homosexuals.

The thing that bothers me is that doctors don't seem to want to do research into medicines and methods that could actually address this problem, because they are too afraid of "offending" the gay rights community. If the scientific community actually got up the courage to do something, maybe we could actually make progress.

But in the meantime, and most important of all, why should someone with homosexual feelings use his feelings as a defining attribute of his person? You do not hear average people defining themselves as heterosexual and building up their entire identity around it.

Sex is important, but it should not define the whole of a people.