YouTube Pulls Apple Employee Video for “Depicting Harmful Activities”[UPDT]

| News

[Update: YouTube has restored the video, and it is once again viewable. Note that neither YouTube nor It Gets Better responded to our request for comment. Readers in the comments below noted that videos automatically get pulled on YouTube if enough complaints are registered, where it is then reviewed by YouTube staff. Whatever the case, it is once against available. - Editor]

YouTube has pulled a video made by Apple employees for the “It Gets Better” project, replacing it with a still image that said the video violated “YouTube’s policy on depiction of harmful activities.” The video included testimonials and stories from gay, lesbian, and transgender Apple employees with the theme that though they were bullied when they were young, things got better, which is what the It Gets Better project is about.

It’s not yet clear how the stories told in the video violate YouTube’s policies on depicting harmful activities. YouTube’s community guideline tips offer some very general suggestions on the kinds of videos that might be rejected, including categories labeled “Sex and Nudity,” “Hate Speech,” “Shocking and Disgusting,” “Dangerous Illegal Acts,” “Children,” “Copyright,” “Privacy,” “Harrassment,” “Impersonation,” and “Threats.”

Those categories don’t, however, offer many specifics on what its users can and can’t post. In that way, they’re similar to Apple’s own App Store approval guidelines.

The video made by Apple employees is similar to many other videos that It Gets Better has posted to YouTube, and a random check of on the project’s video page didn’t find any other videos that have been pulled.

One difference between the Apple employee video and some of the others we watched, however, is that the Apple employee video includes detailed stories of harassment perpetrated upon them in their youth, as well as accounts of contemplated and attempted suicide. It could be that those accounts caused this video to be pulled.

As it is, neither YouTube nor It Gets Better has yet responsded to our request for comment.

YouTube Policy Violation Still

The still image on shown on any third party site that had embedded the video

YouTube Policy Violation Still

The still on YouTube’s own site. The blue text is a link to YouTube’s guidelines on what it’s permissibile to post.

Sign Up for the Newsletter

Join the TMO Express Daily Newsletter to get the latest Mac headlines in your e-mail every weekday.

70 Comments Leave Your Own

dave

The videos got pulled because clearly they hate the haters.

Khaled

Wow!

Garion

Who has confirmed that the people featured in the video are in fact Apple employees? They never mention anything about their jobs in the video. The title just claims they are Apple employees.

Knowing Apple’s strict policies on employees’ rights to speak to the press in the capacity of being an Apple employee I find it hard to believe that Apple would have approved this video, regardless if they’re talking about mobbing or about gay/lesbian issues.

Anonymous

obviously it was deleted because (too many?) people reported it

FJ

@Garion Some of them are definitely Apple employees. You can, amongst others, recognise a few from keynotes and videos the company has released in the recent past.

Given the video’s top-notch quality and production values, it is unlikely that this is a bootleg or grassroots effort. Apple may not have wanted to endorse it publicly on Apple.com but shooting this involved make-up, lighting, music rights, not to mention the crew and equipment, none of which gives an amateur vibe. (Not that amateur vibes are necessarily bad, they are just different.)

Lee Dronick

Google probably didn’t pull the video on their own vetting. It probably got a lot of complaints and that triggered a safety measure. Google may assign someone to investigate the matter and then allow the video, or pull all of the videos in the series. 

A few weeks Apple pulled an app that was perceived to be anti gay. This may have been in retaliation for that.

Lochias

@Garion
The itgetsbetter.org project web site identifies it as “Apple Employees:.

7/7

Knowing Apple?s strict policies on employees? rights to speak to the press in the capacity of being an Apple employee I find it hard to believe that Apple would have approved this video, regardless if they?re talking about mobbing or about gay/lesbian issues.

With Apple’s track record on GLBT issues, I’m surprised Apple didn’t publicly endorse the video and put in on their home page.

bikerdoood

The irony is truly rich. Apple discriminates against Christians who believe that homosexuality is wrong - not that anyone was or could be actually injured by the apps they pulled, which simply expressed opinions and beliefs.

Youtube discriminates against homosexuals who insist that they are just fine the way the are, which were simply opinions being expressed.

When companies discriminate they do so not from a moral requirement to protect others, but out of fear of commercial consequences. Both companies acted out of cowardice.

John Molloy

... And it’s back!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWYqsaJk_U8&feature=share

It was pulled automatically - you only need a few - a couple of hundred - “interested parties” to complain and the automatic system kicks in. It has been manually restored.

BurmaYank

The irony is truly rich. Apple discriminates against Christians who believe that homosexuality is wrong - not that anyone was or could be actually injured by the apps they pulled, which simply expressed opinions and beliefs.

Youtube discriminates against homosexuals who insist that they are just fine the way the are, which were simply opinions being expressed.

When companies discriminate they do so not from a moral requirement to protect others, but out of fear of commercial consequences. Both companies acted out of cowardice.

IMO, there’s really no irony here at all, because Apple’s & Google’s actions were obviously not at all similar in motive.

Yes, I agree that Google apparently did “...discriminate ... not from a moral requirement to protect others, but out of fear of commercial consequences…[and thus)... acted out of cowardice.” 

I also think it’s pretty clear, on the other hand, that Apple could ONLY have acted out of a sense of “...moral requirement to protect others…” from suicide, when its highest policy-making echelon (obviously) decided that Apple should produce & direct this “Apple employees for the ‘It Gets Better’ project” video.  What other motive could Apple possibly have had for producing that video?

And since Apple’s humanitarian motive for producing this video is fairly congruent with its possible motives for its discriminatory action against an app promoting the agenda of “... Christians who believe that homosexuality is wrong…”, it is therefore not necessary to postulate that Apple’s discriminatory action against those Christians’ app-embedded expressions of homosexuality-hostile opinions and beliefs was the same sort of cowardice that Google’s motive for its discriminatory action was.

BurmaYank

... And it?s back!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWYqsaJk_U8&feature=share

OK, so maybe Google (Eric/Sergey) was actually conspiring with Apple (Steve) on this issue to generate immensely more publicity & support for this video & its cause by first banning, and then reinstating it?

Lee Dronick

I just checked and the video is back up on YouTube.

Anonymous

I don’t know how YouTube works internally but I guess most of it is automated, like the pulling of videos if they receive too many flags from the users.

Lee Dronick

I don?t know how YouTube works internally but I guess most of it is automated, like the pulling of videos if they receive too many flags from the users.

That is my thinking as well. How many videos get posted to YouTube per hour, per minute for that matter? They probably don’t have enough staff to vet them closely, if at all, until there are complaints. They need some system to make sure that say child porn gets posted so they rely in large part on the public to complain about inappropriate video.

mhikl

Thanks Rattyuk. You and others must be right. must have been an automatic thingy, which is a good thing. Gives breathing time so the really reprehensible can be checked and stopped.

When I saw the video I was quite moved. Most humans want to learn about and understand others and this video brings its message home clearly from the heart and without agenda. And it wasn’t soppy.

Maybe bullying is the next civil revolution on the table. Society can become better.

Some group with its agenda and soppy beliefs did the run around. Doesn’t hold them in good stead.

AdamBerkey

It has been manually restored.

==

Yah we all need to hear about how to commit suicide by taking a whole bottom of sleeping pills.  Well done, youtube!  You’re teaching your viewers a great lesson on how to kill ourselves.

AdamBerkey

Maybe bullying is the next civil revolution on the table. Society can become better.

==

No, the next civil revolution on the table should be to address gay tendencies according to proper principles of humanity rather than addressing them with sexual solutions.  Gay tendencies are wrongfully diverted into sexual tendencies, because that’s all the world uses.  Sex Sex and more Sex.  It couldn’t possibly be that gays are gifted in other ways.  It couldn’t possibly be that gay tendencies are there for other purposes besides sex.

Stop attributing “sexual orientation” to gay tendencies and you will see a totally open reception of gays in the mature world.  But most people don’t have the insight to tell the difference from being GAY and having a “sexual orientation.”

AndrewG

For all of you people who are saying Google/YouTube is discriminating against gays:

http://youtu.be/pYLs4NCgvNU

Herp Derp.

Lee Dronick

For all of you people who are saying Google/YouTube is discriminating against gays:

I don’t think that they discriminate against gays, there are a lot of LGBT videos on their site. I think that is incident was a targeted attack in retaliation for Apple pulling an anti-gay app. If the tagline for the video was “Silicon Valley Employees” instead of “Apple Employees” then there probably would be enough complaints to trigger an automatic censorship. Google employees made a similar video, as did Facebook and Pixar.

School is tough for most kids gay or not.

True that, but it doesn’t have to be that way; As President Obama said “It Gets Better.”

Nemo

I saw the “It gets better” (Better) video, and there is nothing in it that is any way objectionable, uncivil, or indecent, except for those who think that LGBT individuals shouldn’t have a voice to present their views, their beliefs, their experiences, and, in short, their stories.  I find this kind of bigotry on a YouTube, which has become a public square, just as reprehensible as I find Apple’s removal of the Manhattan and EL apps.  Better was nothing more and certainly nothing less than an instance of civil and decent discourse and, as such, it has a place on YouTube and The App Store, just as the Manhattan and EL apps do.

However, Apple’s employees will find it hard to complain of Google’s bigotry in removing Better without also taking issue with their own employer’s, Apple’s, bigotry in removing Manhattan and EL.  Apple set this example of bigotry and now is in no position to oppose Google’ bigotry without condemning its own bigotry.  And for Apple and for all those who in the comments in this paper argued in support of Apple’s bigotry in removing EL and Manhattan, your own arguments for bigotry now silence and estop you from complaining about Google’s bigotry.

And perhaps now the wisdom, right, and fairness of my position in arguing that all civil and decent speech be permitted on web facilities that have become so popular as to be a public square are clear and must either be acknowledge as true and right in objecting to Google’ bigotry, or you must acknowledge that Google has as much right to be a bigot as our precious Apple, and leave Google alone.

John Molloy

Yah we all need to hear about how to commit suicide by taking a whole bottom of sleeping pills.? Well done, youtube!? You?re teaching your viewers a great lesson on how to kill ourselves.

You are missing the point Adam, probably deliberately.

Nemo

I understand from a comment, supra, that Google has restored the “It gets better video,” if so that is all well and good.  Bigotry of civil and decent discourse doesn’t belong in the public square on the Web.  Google corrected what would have been a reprehensible instance of bigotry; it is time for Apple to do likewise with the Manhattan and EL apps.

John Molloy

Bigotry of civil and decent discourse doesn?t belong in the public square on the Web.? Google corrected what would have been a reprehensible instance of bigotry; it is time for Apple to do likewise with the Manhattan and EL apps.

The other two apps you mentioned encouraged bigotry and “curing” homosexuality. That is precisely why they were pulled.

mhikl

No, the next civil revolution on the table should be to address gay tendencies according to proper principles of humanity. . .

This is a specific quest, AdamBerkey. I would like to see a universal stand or civil revolution on bullying, which is holistic in scope and transcends bigotry in every milieu. Often going after the parts inflames bigotry, irrelevant and circular debate.

Who can criticise a debate on hate and bullying; but every excuse can be reared and aired when pursuing changes in social discourse that can be argued using principles of belief based on faith. From this bases, success is wearied to death and nothing changes and tempers further inflamed.

War Games

THe video is back up and running now

Nemo

Dear rattyuk:  I vehement disagree with you, because the Manhattan and EL apps were, for the reasons that I have expressed in comments to those stories in this paper, civil and decent in their respective speech.

Jamie

@ AdamBerkey

Not only are you (epically) missing the point, but ignorant too (and if you’re joking, I’m going to school ya anyway!). wink

In the United States, the chances of this actually killing a person are almost nil. All over-the-counter drugs (and the vast majority of prescription drugs) have a coating on them that induces (pardon the imagery, folks) vomiting if you take too many of them, it’s virtually impossible to die that way unless other factors are involved; it will poison the hell out of you if you don’t get care, and you will be very, very sick for a good while, but death, no.

It’s about what drove them to that point, and it is a shame to me. Where’s the compassion, dude?

John Molloy

Dear rattyuk:? I vehement disagree with you, because the Manhattan and EL apps were, for the reasons that I have expressed in comments to those stories in this paper, civil and decent in their respective speech.

However civil and decent their wording may be. Bigotry is not a free speech issue.

Nemo

Dear rattyuk:  You are right.  Infringement of free speech is only a constitutional violation, when government does it, which is why Apple can, for now, get away with bigotry in banning the Manhattan and EL apps, which are both civil and decent.  Civil because, as you admit, they are civil in their wording, and civil means to be:  “courteous and polite : we tried to be civil to.”  And since Manhattan and EL are, by your admission, civil in their wording, they conform to the dictionary definition of civility, which is all that can be required of any discourse with respect to civility. 

They are decent, because law, tradition, the overwhelming majority of at least international civilized opinion is in accord with at least the values presented by those apps and because the position presented in those apps is a reasonable statement of those laws, traditions, opinions, and the reasonably held value that the means by which the human species reproduces, the union of man and woman, is entitled to and should have some special status, whereby society discriminates in favor of that status in so far as human reproduction and related matters are concerned.  Thus, the EL and Manhattan apps may be wrong, but they are certainly civil and decent in their respective discourse.

Therefore, because, for the foregoing reasons, the Manhattan and EL apps are both reasonable, decent, and civil statements, there is no basis for excluding them from the App Store or any other public square, just as there is no basis for excluding the “It gets better” video from any place of public expression.

However, Apple does not get a free pass.  Apple’s conduct in banning the Manhattan and EL apps is immoral, and though there are most likely no legal restraints on Apple’s bigotry, Apple will pay a price in other ways.  One that I hope develops is jailbreaking of iOS devices to use other app stores for customers that prefer to take their iOS devices without the filter of Apple’s bigotry, with the resulting competitive damage to the iOS ecosystem.

John Molloy

Apple?s conduct in banning the Manhattan and EL apps is immoral, and though there are most likely no legal restraints on Apple?s bigotry, Apple will pay a price in other ways.

As I suspected there is little point in arguing when your points are based on dogma.

DorianJ

The Human Rights Campaign publishes an annual report and Apple has consistently made the #1 spot (or within top 5) of the most gay-friendly company providing full benefits to gay couples, anti-harrasment training for everyone, support of gay-rights groups like HRC, to name of few of the things Apple does. 

What is interesting is that almost ALL tech companies score a 100% from HRC, including Google, Microsoft, and Adobe.  And in fact, all of these have made It Gets Better videos.

Garion

@Garion Some of them are definitely Apple employees. You can, amongst others, recognise a few from keynotes and videos the company has released in the recent past.

I agree that the video is professionally produced, how ever that in it self does not mean Apple made it. But I assume that the It Gets Better organisation wouldn’t have labelled it “Apple Employees” on their website unless it was true. That has convinced me that they are indeed Apple employees.

celtcwrtr

YouTube needs to explain itself on this one.

d'monder

That is my thinking as well. How many videos get posted to YouTube per hour, per minute for that matter? They probably don?t have enough staff to vet them closely, if at all, until there are complaints. They need some system to make sure that say child porn gets posted so they rely in large part on the public to complain about inappropriate video.

They also shouldn’t rely entirely on complains.

If YouTube doesn’t have it already, they should have a system of algorithms that automatically screen videos, and flags/holds questionable submissions for human review.

I’d be very surprised if Google didn’t have something like it in R&D somewhere.

Nemo

Dear rattyuk:  Apple’s bigotry here is immoral, but it is very human.  Most of us, when something challenges our values, beliefs, political views, etc., simply reject it without being able to sustain a reasonable statement as to why our rejection of the offending idea isn’t bigotry or that the bigotry is, in the particular instance at issue, morally acceptable.  Apple’s senior leadership is no different in having and expressing this very human flaw.

Very few are like Plato or his philosopher king, who will say, even when challenged on his core beliefs:  Let us begin inquiry.  Certainly, notwithstanding his many virtues and his status, I believe, as a good man, Steve Jobs has proved that he is no better than most in being a bigot for his view, even though I am sure he would pay lip service to the idea that civil and decent speech should not be barred.  But, as the late Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes taught us, honoring the principle of tolerating civil and decent discourse is not simply for the easy occasion of the idea that we love or that we don’t much mind but:  “If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.” Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in concurrence in the case of United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644, 655 (1929).

Anonymous

Who has confirmed that the people featured in the video are in fact Apple employees? They never mention anything about their jobs in the video.

Did you not see Randy Ubillos? He is the chief architect of video applications at Apple.

John Molloy

However, Apple does not get a free pass.  Apple?s conduct in banning the Manhattan and EL apps is immoral, and though there are most likely no legal restraints on Apple?s bigotry, Apple will pay a price in other ways.  One that I hope develops is jailbreaking of iOS devices to use other app stores for customers that prefer to take their iOS devices without the filter of Apple?s bigotry, with the resulting competitive damage to the iOS ecosystem.

Excuse me? Did you just say that “Jailbreaking will bring the wrath of God on everything Apple deserves”?

AdamBerkey

Where?s the compassion, dude?

==

Compassion?  I’m not diagnosing being gay to having a specific sexual preference.  I think gays should be encouraged to dismiss sexuality and live life to the fullest of their abilities.  Those who can’t accept that possibility are the ones who have no compassion!

I don’t have compassion on homosexual ACTS or anything that would lead to them, such as attributing being “gay” to having a specific sexual preference.  But that is not the same as not having compassion on gays.  I have all kinds of compassion on people who feel desperate, regardless of their lot in life, gay or not.

Terrin

You can use polite words, that doesn’t mean they are civil or decent. As a private company, Apple is allowed to have its own opinions on what it thinks is right or wrong to include in its store. Further, those who would deny others the same rights they hold in the name of views they hold, but others do not hold, are the bigots.

Apple isn’t required to give equal platforms on its Store. You can use Safari and gain access to any information you want that is on the Internet. Jail breaking isn’t required.

Infringement of free speech is only a constitutional violation, when government does it, which is why Apple can, for now, get away with bigotry in banning the Manhattan and EL apps, which are both civil and decent.

Terrin

You do understand that the concept behind the whole pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness is to be able to act in your own interests provided these interests do not directly harm others?

Apple can sell what is wants in its Store. There is nothing immoral about that. Apple isn’t forcing anybody to buy its products. It also hasn’t prevented anyone from obtaining information using its products. Through Safari, you can get what ever information you want. Apple just isn’t carrying applications that undermines its objectives in its Store. In my view, it would be immoral to force Apple to carry applications that stood against its core beliefs.  Funny, nobody is claiming Apple is immoral for not carrying porn in its Store though plenty would argue there is nothing wrong with porn (Apple likely made that decision based on some people finding it offense). Nonetheless, I certainly can find plenty of that on my iPhone without an app, so Apple sure hasn’t stood in my way there.

Also there is a distinction between discrimination and bigotry, which you seem to miss. Being human and making judgement calls requires discrimination. When I select chocolate ice cream over vanilla, I have discriminated. When I pick one person over another for a job, I have discriminated. Discrimination, however, doesn’t necessarily mean intolerance towards others views as bigotry means. Apple can be discriminatory without being a bigot, which is likely the case here.

Finally, freedom to express your views also implies the freedom not to express your views. Apple isn’t immoral for taking action without explanation. It would be immoral and hypocritical to require Apple to explain its views while advocating for the freedom of speeh. Apple discriminated when it removed the application, as it discriminated when ever it rejects an application.  That doesn’t show bigotry though.

Dear rattyuk:? Apple?s bigotry here is immoral, but it is very human.? Most of us, when something challenges our values, beliefs, political views, etc., simply reject it without being able to sustain a reasonable statement as to why our rejection of the offending idea isn?t bigotry or that the bigotry is, in the particular instance at issue, morally acceptable.? Apple?s senior leadership is no different in having and expressing this very human flaw.

Very few are like Plato or his philosopher king, who will say, even when challenged on his core beliefs:? Let us begin inquiry.? Certainly, notwithstanding his many virtues and his status, I believe, as a good man, Steve Jobs has proved that he is no better than most in being a bigot for his view, even though I am sure he would pay lip service to the idea that civil and decent speech should not be barred.? But, as the late Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes taught us, honoring the principle of tolerating civil and decent discourse is not simply for the easy occasion of the idea that we love or that we don?t much mind but:? ?If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.? Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in concurrence in the case of United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644, 655 (1929).

John Molloy

Compassion?  I?m not diagnosing being gay to having a specific sexual preference.  I think gays should be encouraged to dismiss sexuality and live life to the fullest of their abilities.  Those who can?t accept that possibility are the ones who have no compassion!

I don?t have compassion on homosexual ACTS or anything that would lead to them, such as attributing being ?gay? to having a specific sexual preference.  But that is not the same as not having compassion on gays.  I have all kinds of compassion on people who feel desperate, regardless of their lot in life, gay or not.

We get it. You think that homosexuals are evil and they should burn in hell. You aren’t saying that. But that is what you mean.

Ben

The video plays now.

AdamBerkey

You aren?t saying that. But that is what you mean.

==

You don’t know what I mean.  There’s only one position that you can accept from anybody that does not agree with your philosophies, and somehow its your duty to lump us all into that same group, regardless of how different our positions may be from each other.  Its like calling a Mormon the same as a Catholic, and both of them the same as a Protestant.  Totally different in specifics and ends, yet too complicated for you to take the time to consider those differences and how they can affect their beliefs.

I don’t call gays homosexuals.  You do.  By definition you can’t separate the two terms.  But I can, and I do.  In my book, anybody can act homosexual.  They don’t have to be gay first.  But in your bubble, anybody that acts homosexually is gay.  And that is crap.

John Molloy

You don?t know what I mean.

Then please explain Adam. Your comments both to the original posting and this posting have been, to say the least, inflammatory.

You started with first post on the original article by laying down your opinion:

AdamBerkey said on April 15th, 2011 at 8:02 PM:
Not interested in this crap.”

For someone who “isn’t interested” you appear to have been posting your opinion liberally. After some responses to your original, throw away post you replied:

AdamBerkey said on April 16th, 2011 at 10:34 AM:
You don?t want to start talking about solutions, because they involve observing to proper principles of life and morality that preserves humanity instead of leading to the extinction of it.  The false principles behind ?homosexuality? lead to a dead end for humanity.  It is a parasite that can only perpetuate as long as there are people who continue to observe the true nature of humanity - procreation.

I think that was the first point where you DID call gays “homosexuals”, despite the fact you say “I don?t call gays homosexuals” which is why I responded to you in the terms you yourself used. Homosexuality is not a philosophy. But it does seem that people of your ilk think that it is a “lifestyle choice” that should not be considered. Apparently they are “parasites” according to your words.

So having left your mark all over the original post you decided to continue to show how “uninterested” in the subject you were by continuing the argument here. That does call into question a few things though doesn’t it? You aren’t interested in the subject but have had to respond to comments that don’t fit in with your point of view.

You decided to respond to my, helpful posting, that the video had been restored with these, not so kind words:

“Yah we all need to hear about how to commit suicide by taking a whole bottom of sleeping pills.  Well done, youtube!  You?re teaching your viewers a great lesson on how to kill ourselves.”

One assumes that the word “bottom” was a Freudian slip, but we’ll let that pass shall we? Your portrayal of the clip as an instructional video on suicide was disingenuous to say the least, and based on your other postings, reinforced the impression that you were some kind of knee-jerk evangelist.

I then pointed out that you were missing the point.

Then we get to the meat of your argument. You see homosexuality as a bad trait that should be eliminated.

“No, the next civil revolution on the table should be to address gay tendencies according to proper principles of humanity rather than addressing them with sexual solutions.”

“I think gays should be encouraged to dismiss sexuality and live life to the fullest of their abilities.  Those who can?t accept that possibility are the ones who have no compassion!”

This is the standard American Christian response to homosexuality.  There is nothing wrong with people being gay as long as they don’t act on the impulse.

To quote Ghandi: “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Mogigo

Manhatten promoted breaking the law and exodus promoted therapy that has been proven to cause psychological damage to those receiving this so called “therapy”  Neither is a bigotry issue.  One is a legal arguement = Apple cannot promaote any activity that would break the law, and they also cannot promote a “therapy” that causes harm to anyone.

Lee Dronick

This is starting to get old.

AdamBerkey

“Then please explain Adam.”
==
Ok.  I do not believe that a person can be “a” homosexual.  A person can act homosexually or heterosexually, but the person is still either a male or female, and that doesn’t change. 

Sexual “orientation” is a load of crap.  Accepting the concept immediately divides humanity into two “sides” that cannot be reconciled.  And that is a fallacy. 

I can accept gay qualities for what they really are, because what they really are is not sexual.  If there are any sexual associations attributed to being gay, they are incorrect associations.

Now rather than explaining anything further that is not relevant, and to avoid being accused of preaching, I’ll stop there.  And if you care to discuss this further, email me.  Because I don’t think TMO is the place to read or discuss these things.  I never did.  Hence my first comment about not being “interested in this crap.”  The comment was an attempt to state my interest inasmuch as it concerned the type information I am exposed to on this web site.  As far as discussing these things in their appropriate place, I am interested in that.

gnasher729

Ok.? I do not believe that a person can be ?a? homosexual.? A person can act homosexually or heterosexually, but the person is still either a male or female, and that doesn?t change.?

Who the f*** are you to tell people what they can and cannot do sexually? About fifty percent of all adults would punch you in the face if you told them that they should have sex with men only. And the other fifty percent of all adults would punch you in the face if you told them that they should have sex with women only. Well, I would actually punch you either way, even though I have no interest at all in one of the two genders, because it is none of your business.

And if Apple doesn’t support interfering busybodies who want to impress their perverted view of the world on others, then I can only support them. The sad thing is that real men have no problem whatsoever with someone who is gay; the ones with problems are those who have a conflict between their own feelings and how they want to be seen by the world.

AdamBerkey

“Who…are you to tell people what they can and cannot do sexually?”
==

Just one man with an opinion that is obviously different from yours.  Imagine that!  Are you blaming me for people being gay? 


“because it is none of your business.”
==
What a crock!  It IS my business when your desires made sexual change my world.  And who the $#%!#@ are YOU to say they haven’t?  This very thread clearly manifests that your desires made sexual is directly affecting me.

jfbiii

dismiss sexuality and live life to the fullest of their abilities

When heterosexuals are required to do the same, I’ll be happy to.

But you’re not arguing that everyone be required to not act on their sexual desires. You’re just trying to require that people whose desires for sex include sex with a same-sex partner be required to not act on theirs.

Or is that not sufficiently nuanced?

AdamBerkey

“You?re just trying to require that…”
==
I’m not trying to require anything.  I am only voicing my opinion. 

Do you want to discuss gays or homosexual activity?  I don’t think these are synonymous.  Homosexual activity is wrong.  Being gay isn’t. 

You ought to take these statements and instead of continuing to approach me as if I’m treating them as the same, approach me as if I’m treating them as independent from each other as I keep suggesting. There is no nuance, only that which has been brainwashed in your head of your own conclusions of the terms.  You certainly did not get those definitions from me.

Just because the corrupt side of our society is sex-centric, does not justify for gays to use sex as the vertex to all their differences with non-gays, nor for non-gays to using sex as a vertex to all their differences with gays.  The complications this approach creates should be enough for any intelligent person to see it is an incorrect approach to addressing issues regarding gays.

mhikl

Guys, AdamBerkey is a sophist. Why are you arguing with him. There can be no discussion with someone who is trying to dissociate sexuality from human nature. It would be the same as trying to dissociate colour from red or religion from Abraham or one of his faiths. His are circular and fallacious arguments any first years philosophy course might use in a one hour class session to show the foolery some will go to trying to be clever in argument. It’s like dissociating one’s body from his feet. Stop treading there.

AdamBerkey

“is trying to dissociate sexuality from human nature.”
==
The latitude of human nature’s requirements far exceeds the scope of being gay.  To suggest that the scope of being gay requires the same latitude crosses the line of absurdity.  I doubt you are capable of HONEST discourse after making such a stupid comment.  I certainly have doubts as to how much I can trust you now. 

mhikl, is sodomy against the law?

zewazir

Apple discriminated when it removed the application, as it discriminated when ever it rejects an application.  That doesn?t show bigotry though.

It does show bigotry when there is a pattern of discrimination against a particular group or point of view. By removing both apps which brought about a strong response from the gay community, Apple IS showing bigotry against those groups who believe and express the opinion that homosexuality is morally wrong.

Of course, free speech only counts when modern liberals don’t object to the content.

jfbiii

Homosexual activity is wrong.  Being gay isn?t.

It’s always gay people that can’t be allowed to express or experience the full range of their identity. You can no more separate gay from sex than you can straight from sex. Sex is part of the human experience, as is sexual desire. The catholic church tries to pull the same crap: it’s not immoral to have homosexual desires, only to act on them.

Of course, free speech only counts when modern liberals don?t object to the content.

Hardly. Modern conservatives, religious conservatives in particular are quick to suppress speech with which they don’t agree. Of course, in the context of the Apple Store, free speech doesn’t really apply.

If bullies want to whine about how their rights are being violated because they aren’t allowed to beat someone up, denigrate someone else’s existence, or relegate some minority population to the status of second class citizen, let them bitch…they won’t find any sympathy from me.

zewazir

Hardly. Modern conservatives, religious conservatives in particular are quick to suppress speech with which they don?t agree.

Care to point out ONE recent example of this? Where has any religious group, in recent years, taken action to prevent the free speech of others?

It is YOUR side which has been running around inventing new terms like “hate crime” and “hate speech” so you can legitimize your desires to prevent speech you disagree with, and add extra penalties to actions you define as being derived from beliefs you disagree with.

As for actions being wrong where desires are not, how is that not in concert with reality? People feel desires which would yield immoral behavior of all kinds all the time. MOST do not act on them. A 50 year-old man will quite often feel desire for young - sometimes TOO young - women. MOST do not act on it. I’d wager there is not a person alive who has not, at one time, had the desire to go ahead an take (steal) an item which they desire but cannot afford. MOST do not act on their desires. Temptation is a natural condition. Giving in to temptation is what comprises sin, not the desire to do so.

Most religions define homosexual activity as sinful.  Unless you can PROVE their religious beliefs are wrong, claiming the right to deny them the same avenues of expression you enjoy is antithetical to the principles of this nation.

jfbiii

Where has any religious group, in recent years, taken action to prevent the free speech of others?

Hmmm…something about a mosque in NYC comes to mind. And then there’s NOM. And the Manhattan Declaration bigots. And the Exodus people that try to brainwash kids. Man, every day is suppress the rights of LGBT people in almost any mainstream religious organization in the country. Salvation Army, BSA, RCC, Mormons (don’t kiss on our public square, fags!), Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America…the list goes on and on.

It is YOUR side which has been running around inventing new terms like ?hate crime? and ?hate speech? so you can legitimize your desires to prevent speech you disagree with

NOT TRUE. Hate crimes laws ALREADY INCLUDE special protections for crimes motivated by religious bias. LGBT people simply want to be included in something that has been around for decades.

Unless you can PROVE their religious beliefs are wrong, claiming the right to deny them the same avenues of expression you enjoy is antithetical to the principles of this nation.

No, unless they can prove they’re right, they should not enjoy the ability to persecute a minority and deny them equal civil rights. The mistake you’re making is treating civil rights as a zero-sum game: you’re saying that in order for LGBT people to enjoy equal rights, the rights of the majority must be infringed. But there is no right of the majority to deny constitutional protection to a minority.

AdamBerkey

“LGBT people simply want to be included in something that has been around for decades.”
==
I disagree.  LGBT people already have the same rights as the rest of us in sexual liberty.  If they want to have sexual relations with the opposite gender, of the correct age and consent, they can, just like the rest of us.  It is wrong to allow LGBT as well as “the rest of us” to have sexual relations with the same gender.  That limitation is on all of us, not just LGBT people. 


zewazir wrote:  “It is YOUR side which has been running around inventing new terms like ?hate crime? and ?hate speech? so you can legitimize your desires to prevent speech you disagree with…”

I totally agree!  For instance, SOME (not all) LGBT’s initiative to separate themselves from the law that is placed upon all people.  These people are barking up the wrong tree. 


jfbiii wrote:  “It?s always gay people that can?t be allowed to express or experience the full range of their identity.”
==
I’ll try not to mock your teenage attitude, here.  LGBT identity has nothing to do with sexual relations.  It has to do with love and compassion.  You could use that appropriately according to proper principles and find great joy and happiness throughout your life, rather than kicking against the bricks and insisting that you are entitled to something that nobody else is.

jfbiii

That limitation is on all of us, not just LGBT people.

LOL…thanks, dude. In order for that to be fair, straight people would have to only have sex with people of the same sex.

LGBT identity is connected to sexual desires and actions. Just like a straight identity is.

insisting that you are entitled to something that nobody else is

Nope. Insisting that I am entitled to what everyone else is.

mhikl

mhikl, is sodomy against the law?

Of course, free speech only counts when modern liberals don?t object to the content.

Most religions define homosexual activity as sinful.

Sodomy or buggery is practised by some members of both hetero- and homosexual camps. Faulty logic and prejudice or ignorance is practiced by both Liberal and Conservatives. Human discourse and intercourse is complex and multifaceted. We are a complicated species. It may be the alpha-nature of some individuals and submission to their authority by others that demands conformity to beliefs based upon faith or science. One can believe in the existence of a god or an after life based upon faith. One can disbelieve the same based upon faith. Science can neither prove nor disprove god or an afterlife. However, science can disprove articles of any faith that are measurable and discoverable. The easiest example is the value of pi noted in Jewish and Christian scripture. I do not know if this is true of the other major Abrahamic faith, Islam.

Science is measurable and is under constant challenge and needs to be if it is going to be true to its roots in the search of truth. Faith can’t be challenged by the faithful and science may have to take a back seat for strident believers.

Cana scientist have faith? Can one who has faith accept science when it comes to his or her religion? Such is the complexity of the human mind. Both camps have no choice but to respect the rights, if not the ways of the other.

No AdamBerkey, sodomy or buggery is not against civil law, at least not in my country. It may be against the religious laws of Abrahamic faith based worshipers and that is their choice to abide by their religious strictures.

The higher order on this good earth is civil law. The faithful can claim another higher order for their afterworld. The faithful can choose to abide by the laws of their faith on this good earth, but they have no choice regarding civil and criminal law if they wish to avoid the authority the state may impose.

It you are a wo/man of a faith based religion with a moral code against this act then look to your strictures before making your choice to engage in such an act. If you are not a wo/man of a faith based reasoning, again, you have choice, more likely based on taste/distaste.

I, as a member of a community that some define as a religion and some (and I) do not, then none of this matters as is not designed by faith. And when a thought, ideas, or practice is found to be false, it is modified or abandoned. The moon was thought, at one time, to generate its own luminance. Once shadows were depicted from the edges of craters, texts and attitudes were changed. Science guides its beliefs. What can be proved true is accepted. What can be proved to be false, is rejected. What can neither be proved nor disproved is left to the individual’s choosing.

zewazir

No, unless they can prove they?re right, they should not enjoy the ability to persecute a minority and deny them equal civil rights.

Except neither of the apps tossed by Apple, a move supported by anti-free speech twits, did nothing to remove rights from anyone. But that does not matter to you, does it?  The organization engages in political activities you disagree with, therefore ALL their speech can be rightfully attacked and banned. Your type of self-righteous hubris is far more dangerous to the principles of a free society than anything that can be found in those apps you hate so much.

jfbiii

I’m not anti-free speech. Constitutionally, nobody is interfering with free speech in the case of Exodus or the Manhattan Declaration with regards to the App Store.

I do not believe that the majority has a constitutional right to create a civil construct and then incorrectly prevent a minority from access to that construct in a meaningful form. That is far different from saying that I do not believe that the majority cannot express a desire to prevent me from doing so. However, what that majority does not have a right to do is demand that anyone else provide them with the means to express that desire. To do so would necessarily entail abridging someone’s else’s right to freedom of speech.

It’s important to understand that if Apple wanted to ignore people complaining about these apps, they could have. And would have been well within their rights to do so. Petitioning Apple one way or another has nothing to do with abridging someone’s right to speech. The constitution denotes rights that the government may not abridge rather than opportunities that individuals must provide one another.

AdamBerkey

“LGBT identity is connected to sexual desires and actions. Just like a straight identity is. “
==

I can’t buy into this idea that sexual desire is linked to one’s identity.  What would make you think that?  I seriously can’t see sexual desire having to do with one’s identity any more than wanting chocolate would be.  Sure, once you have some you want more, but part of your identity?  That’s absurd.  Gender is definitely part of one’s identity, but not sexual desire. 

Please explain to me how you feel one’s identity is linked to sexual desire.  I think sexual desire is pushed to the forefront and is misrepresenting the real issue. 

If you are gay, can you honestly declare to me that sexual relations with the appropriate partner fulfills the need of your identity?  Why would you say it’s linked to your identity?  I am not gay and I don’t feel that sexual relations defines my identity in any way.  Creating a child through sexual relations is very fulfilling, but I wouldn’t even consider that a link to my identity, only a fulfillment to desire based on religious faith.  Sex is a native experience.  I can think of a lot more fulfilling things to do.  How on Earth does something so unimportant affect your identity?

jfbiii

You’re free to think that. I doubt that I can help you link a need for physical contact with other human beings, specifically through sex, if you don’t actually have such a need yourself. Just like people are unable to explain to me how faith in something supernatural fulfills a need that they have when I myself lack such a need.

AdamBerkey

jfbiii wrote:  “I doubt that I can help you link a need for physical contact with other human beings, specifically through sex, if you don?t actually have such a need yourself.”
==

Don’t change the wording, here.  The phrase was “sexual relations” not “physical contact.”  This is so typical of you disgusting sex maniacs.  Stop trying to represent the gay community.  You’re doing a terrible job of it, like a Muslim extremist who kills people in the name of his religion.

jfbiii

Disgusting sex maniacs? Thanks for the laughs, dude.

AdamBerkey

“Disgusting sex maniacs?”
==

That’s right.  Should I be surprised now at any of your responses?  Normal people do not have SEX on their minds like you do, even a gay.  You are simply not normal, “DUDE.”  There are so many greater things to do with your gay gifts than selfishly tuck them away in bed with someone of the same gender!  You are a maniac.  Thinking that you have any weight to influence the voice of the gay community is what’s laughable.

jfbiii

even a gay

Wow.

John Molloy

Adam - it is a week later. You are still a moron.

Log-in to comment