The Instigator
westernmarch
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KRFournier
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

The BSA ought to let homosexual males into the BSA

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
KRFournier
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,310 times Debate No: 24863
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

westernmarch

Pro

http://dictionary.reference.com...

(used to express duty or moral obligation): Every citizen ought to help.
2.
(used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like): He ought to be punished. You ought to be ashamed.
3.
(used to express propriety, appropriateness, etc.): You ought to be home early. We ought to bring her some flowers.

BSA- The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is one of the largest youth organizations in the United States, with 2.7 million youth members and over 1 million adult volunteers.[2] Since its founding in 1910 as part of the international Scout Movement, more than 110 million Americans have been members of the BSA.[3]
The BSA goal is to train youth in responsible citizenship, character development, and self-reliance through participation in a wide range of outdoor activities, educational programs, and, at older age levels, career-oriented programs in partnership with community organizations

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"let into" means become a member as is most everyone else in the organization.

1- Con may post agreements R1 but as doing so s/he accepts my terms
2- No semantics/'lawyering'. Doing so is the lost of conduct.
3- Have fun.
KRFournier

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
westernmarch

Pro

It is immoral

It is bullying to deny someone of an activity on the basis of sexuality. Such low bully cannot be moral or train boys for the real world.


Gays are not bad for the other kids

Gays in the grand scheme of things are not any more different then anyone one esle. There is no reason gays would badly effect the other members for that, again , gays usually act normal. There really is no need to be straight to be a Boys Scout because what the hell would that do? Scaremongering parents are unrightfully dividing the much needed straight/gay relationships.


BSA ought to let homosexuals into the program.


KRFournier

Con

My opponent seems to overlook something crucial in this debate. The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is a private club. Membership in the BSA is not a prerequisite for anything else. It is a values-based organization designed to instill predetermined values into its members. Those values are determined by the BSA leadership. My opponent certainly disagrees with the BSA's values, but that is irrelevant as there are plenty of other similar organizations to choose from such as Navigators USA, which is "coed, non-religious, and inclusive." [1]

So, what is really at stake here? Do homosexuals really lose anything? Are their rights really crushed? I can understand that homosexuals desiring to enter into the BSA are disappointed, but I imagine there are girls out there who are disappointed also. I argue that disappointment is not enough to support the resolution.

Let's look at my opponent's two contentions:

It is immoral

bul·ly - A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people. A hired ruffian; a thug. [2]

I fail to see how the BSA is objectively engaging in bullying here. Sure, it might feel like bullying to those denied membership, but there is no objective evidence that discrimination is happening with the intention of being cruel. Is the BSA really strong and homosexuals weak? When you consider that society is increasingly accepting of homosexuality, it seems to me that the people are in a stronger position to vote with their membership. Join Navigators and watch the BSA membership decline into oblivion.

If the BSA is bullying homosexuals, then it is also bullying females. My opponent must objectively show how some discrimination is bullying and some is not.

Gays are not bad for the other kids

Neither are girls, so why is it okay to deny them membership?

Conclusion

If you want to support a scouting organization that allows gay membership, then do it. They already exist. Support them. It's your right and, dare I say, your duty to do so if you want to send a clear message to more conservative minding organizations. Perhaps twenty years from now the BSA will fade away as progressive values become dominant in America. Perhaps then the BSA will reconsider their membership policies. In the meantime, the BSA is under no moral obligation to admit members that are not in line with their preferred values.

The BSA ought to choose its own membership policies as it sees fit.

Sources

  1. http://www.troop97.net...
  2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Debate Round No. 2
westernmarch

Pro

westernmarch forfeited this round.
KRFournier

Con

How disappointing. I was looking forward to my opponent's rebuttal. All arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 3
westernmarch

Pro

Con has made a fallacy. He makes a Red Herring in his rebuttal for my two points. Also he needs to note the 'ought'. He never proven it is moral to avoid homosexual campers. Private Organisation or not it is still immoral.

Rebuttal 1-
Again Red Herring. Saying to a group of people "you cant join." is bullying. With intent. All I have to prove its immoral to not allow gays in. Con fails to prove otherwise.

I will not go into the female part for it is a Red Herring.
KRFournier

Con

Con has made a fallacy. He makes a Red Herring in his rebuttal for my two points. Also he needs to note the 'ought'. He never proven it is moral to avoid homosexual campers. Private Organisation [sic] or not it is still immoral.

My opponent was burdened to show that the current membership policy is immoral, not the other way around. He did not meet that burden when I cast serious doubts on his arguments.

Again Red Herring. Saying to a group of people "you cant [sic] join." is bullying. With intent. All I have to prove its [sic] immoral to not allow gays in. Con fails to prove otherwise.

Fallacy of Bare Assertion. I already showed that my opponent can't simply call it bullying. He must argue that it is so.

I will not go into the female part for it is a Red Herring.

My opponent's whole case assumes that the BSA's membership is immoral because it is discriminatory, but he did not elaborate on whether or not some discrimination is wrong and some is right. If discriminating against girls is right and against homosexual boys is wrong—keeping in mind that this is a privately owned club—then he must explain why that is. Calling it a red herring is tantamount to throwing in the towel.

The resolution was not affirmed, and it is reasonable to vote Con.

Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GWL-CPA 4 years ago
GWL-CPA
As my wife"s state, the anus is for output, not input.

Here"s a fact, the biological function of the anal canal and rectum are for waste removal
"Anal Canal Function"
"It serves to lubricate and transmit fecal matter as it passes from the rectum to outside the body. It helps regulate defecation and maintain continence (voluntary control over fecal discharge)." It is from 1" to 1 " inches long and is connect to the rectum. The main function of the rectum is to act as a temporary storage site for fecal matter before it is eliminated from the body through the anal canal.
It serves to lubricate and transmit fecal matter as it passes from the rectum to outside the body. It helps regulate defecation and maintain continence (voluntary control over fecal discharge).
http://www.ehow.com...
http://www.knowyourbody.net...

So, Homosexuals and men who have anal sex with their female partners are just plain sick folks that need help.
Posted by GWL-CPA 4 years ago
GWL-CPA
Again, this post starts at my first post below.

And, as more and more statistics are brought out, the proof will be that homosexual men rape more boys than any other group. The reason that is not known now is because many of the men raping boys are married to women (Gary Sandusky) and aren"t considered gay, so it is not counted as homosexual rape. But, these men are pure homosexuals and they are very sick folks. Adult married men raping boys is one of the most underreported crimes in America, as are rapes by older non-adult brothers or friends of the family that are also not reported or counted.

So, we are left with the only reason gay men want to be Scout Leaders is because they like being around young men for sexual pleasure and the hope that they can convince young boys to become homosexuals like them; abominations to God!

These anal screwing, penis sucking perverts need to be banned from the Boy Scouts forever; and most, thrown in jail, since they are too sick to be helped. And now, the LGBT community is being shown as normal and shoved down the throats of heterosexual America.

And, citing the fact that animals (e.g., monkeys) engage in same sex activities as proof that gay sex is normal is ludicrous. Monkeys and non-human animals are driven by solely by primitive instincts for survival; they cannot reason. Man also has the sex drive for survival, but man can reason. Man knows that sex is for procreation and perpetuation of the species, which can only occur naturally between a man and a woman.

Gay sex is unclean and unhealthy. The rate of sexually transmitted Diseases in the Gay population is over 60%, which is almost double for that of the white heterosexual women (33%) and triple for white heterosexual men (21%).
Posted by GWL-CPA 4 years ago
GWL-CPA
This is part of the entire post which starts two posts down. Gays are breaking God's laws and should be banned from Boy and Girl Scouts because they believe in the teachings of God, the Gays ignore the teachings or make believe they don't mean what they mean.

1 Timothy 1:8-10
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine ... (ESV)

Jude 7
And don't forget Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, which were filled with immorality and every kind of sexual perversion. Those cities were destroyed by fire and serve as a warning of the eternal fire of God's judgment. (NIV)
http://christianity.about.com...

I guess we need to figure out why gay men want to be Boy Scout Leaders.

So, if Gays know they are breaking the Boy Scouts oath, what possible reasons could they have?

One of their biggest reasons is too destroy another American Institution, like Marriage, so they can feel like they are normal; but, they are not normal; they are anal screwing, penis sucking perverts that are responsible for more STD"s than any other group. The LGBT (Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community is three times more likely to do illegal drugs. For the most part, they are debase and devoid of common morals and respect for society.
Posted by GWL-CPA 4 years ago
GWL-CPA
Let"s look at the Boy Scout"s Oath:

"On my honor, I will do my best, to do my duty to God and my country. To help other people at all times, to obey the Scout Law, and to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight."

Then, let"s look at the Boy Scout"s Law:

"A Scout is: Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave Clean, and Reverent."

Then let"s look at the Boy Scout"s Handbook that defines Reverent: "A Scout is Reverent. - A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others."

The God part and Reverent are where homosexuals and bisexuals don"t qualify. And, the Boy Scouts don"t respect others that have beliefs that are irreverent to God or the Bible, like the belief that homosexuality is normal, which it is not; it is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord, our God!

The Bible, which was written by God through men, clearly state the gays are sinners and an abomination to the Lord. So the Boy Scouts are being reverent toward God.

Leviticus 18:22
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." (NLT)

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." (NLT)

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people-none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our Go
Posted by GWL-CPA 4 years ago
GWL-CPA
The Boys Scouts, like all private clubs, institutions, and organizations, can have rules that prohibit gays because they believe being gay is immoral based on the Bible and the teachings of God or for whatever beliefs they hold. This has already been decided by the Supreme Court in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale.

These clubs, institutions, and organizations can exclude women, blacks or any ethic group they want, or men, if they are a women"s only club or organization, like the Girls Scouts. They don"t even have to have any public reasons if that is what the members want; it is nobody"s business.

"Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000), was a case of the Supreme Court of the United States decided on June 28, 2000, that held that the constitutional right to freedom of association allows a private organization like the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to exclude a person from membership when "the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints." In a five to four decision, the Supreme Court ruled that opposition to homosexuality is part of BSA's "expressive message" and that allowing homosexuals as adult leaders would interfere with that message. It reversed a decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court that had determined that New Jersey's public accommodations law required the BSA to readmit assistant Scoutmaster James Dale, who had made his homosexuality public and whom the BSA had expelled from the organization."

"The Boy Scouts of America is a private, non-profit organization engaged in instilling its system of values in young people. It asserts that homosexuality is inconsistent with those values."
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by alexluis 4 years ago
alexluis
i am personally in the BSA, we sleep in tents right next to eachother, sometimes with just one other guy. i would not feel very comftertable sleeping next to someone who is gay especially if i was alone. it sounds homophobic, but if you had to do it you would understand
Posted by Korashk 4 years ago
Korashk
The word you're looking for is semantics.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Ah I will eventually partake in one of these
Posted by westernmarch 4 years ago
westernmarch
Just the man I want to see
Posted by westernmarch 4 years ago
westernmarch
finding loopholes in words and taking it out of context.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
westernmarchKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - No Contest | Arguments - Pro provided no reasoning for the assertion of immoral exclusion. None. | Sources - Con exclusively used source arguments. The only sources used by pro where to establish terms and definition. I don't believe a more detailed RFD is needed.
Vote Placed by stubs 4 years ago
stubs
westernmarchKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro said it was bullying and immoral, but con refuted well and conduct for the forfeit as well