The Boy Scouts of America should allow Gay Scouts/Scoutmasters to remain in the program.
I accept this debate on the condition that its two things are taken as axiomatic.
Axiom 1: The Boy Scout Oath is taken as cardinal importance to the Boy Scouts of America or any Boy Scout organization around the world for that matter, teaching the Oath and instilling it as part of the values and character of the boys in our program is our end goal.
Axiom 2: The Scout Law is taken the same way, and really all other scouting slogans and sayings (be prepared, do a good turn daily, leave no trace, the outdoor code, ect…)
Pro could argue all he wants about how my organization would benefit from doing something if he wants too. He could make cases about what an action would do for our PR, or increase in membership, but if the actions do not line up with and promote the creed than they are for nothing and pointless. If we opened up to let Girls in our organization it might allow for more members but that really makes no sense considering the nature of our program and who it targets.
However we argue over this topic, scouting is the common ground we have for this debate, and our cases need to use the language of scouting.
My opponent, being the Pro to this resolution, has burden of proof. A change in the current status always requires sufficient reason for doing so and that position is the one my opponent argues from this debate.
Crayzman2297 forfeited this round.
I understand my opponent could not post last round do to wether problems and a power outage, I will pass on this round without arguement so the forfieted round will not give me an unfair advantage
it will reduce the debate to just 2 rounds, but its not like the 3rd one is ever anything other than repeating the points already said.
Crayzman2297 forfeited this round.
sigh, it seems weather problems have not just kept Pro from posting but have stalled out the debate enough longer than he has the ability to hold interest in it. kind of glad I had not waisted any effort on this debate yet.
however, should anyone ever come across reading this debate cause there looking into my past debates cause they think my arguments are an awsome read, or there just interested in topics related to the Boy Scouts, fear not, I plan on posting a rant of my opinon on this topic for the final round. cant really call it an argument when there has been no one to argue with, so for this final round my case shall be only have the honor of being called a rant. ;)
I will focus on these points of the Scout Law:
Friendly, Brave, and Kind.
I will expand upon three points, for which I shall submit dictionary definitions:
of, relating to, or befitting a friend: as
a: showing kindly interest and goodwill
b: not hostile ; also: involving or coming from actions of one's own forces 
If we are to accept this definition from Merriam-Webster, then being friendly involves "showing kindly interest and goodwill". The scout law does not discriminate by race or sexual orientation, therefore I should reflect a Scout's (& Scouter's) behavior towards ALL people, including Homosexuals. By treating homosexual scout leaders (many of whom are fathers) they are not embodying their own Law, for discrimination clearly violates the point of "Friendly".
having or showing courage 
A Scout is Brave. Bravery, being one of the 12 points of the Scout Law, is something that the Boy Scouts of America clearly wants to encourage. Being Gay is a personal struggle that many people have trouble dealing with. It results in kids getting bullied, harassed, and targeted. For many of these kids the Boy Scouts of America offers great constructive programs, teaching them life skills that will stick with them forever... To be kicked out because you're gay just adds insult to injury. It forces many to stay in the closet, where they have to deal with pent-up emotions beyond what the average teenager already has.
"I had a lot of desperate days.... I was ashamed" - says one boy who feared for what his parents and friends would think if he revealed he was gay. He had a legitimate fear of being disowned by his parents. For any boy to reveal their own homosexuality takes courage and bravery that most teens do not have to deal with. For many, coming out is a decision which affects their family, school, and social life in many drastic ways all at once.
One gay Boy Scout said that "because I knew that I was different, I felt like I had to conform or risk being ostracized."  This Scout is a camp counselor, and has dedicated much of his life to serving the BSA.
He also said:
"It's been a part of my life since I was 6 years old. It's really helped shape a lot of who I am today as far as communication skills, outdoors skills and working in teams. So many of my memories come from scout camp, and some of my best friends are people I've been on staff with. It's a way of life. The ideals of this program are with you forever."
I do not believe that any unbiased, rational person can justify exclusion of anyone from the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of an involuntary condition from birth that does no harm to anyone.
And on that note I would like to close my argument with the point of "Kind".
a: of a sympathetic or helpful nature
b: of a forbearing nature : gentle
c: arising from or characterized by sympathy or forbearance 
It is in no way sympathetic or helpful to anybody to denounce gays as incapable to lead in the Boy Scouts. It is discriminatory. Most children do not become aware of their sexuality until their mid-teens... well AFTER they would have joined Boy Scouts at age 11. This discrimination sends a message of fear to them they they are not as good as the other boys, which is simply not true.
I have reached my character limit, or I would go further :(
Well it seams my opponent finally did get around to giving an argument. I shall do my best to rebut after presenting my own short case given the 3,000 character limit. To begin I would like to address Pro’s case for ‘Friendly’.
Discrimination is not by default ‘unfriendly’, if it were then the Boy Scouts are also being ‘unfriendly’ to women also as we only let boys participate as scouts in the program. But that inclusive nature of the boy scout program should be taken as insulting or rude somehow, anyone with common sense can see our program does not target girls and so there is no place for them beyond adult leadership. Likewise we do not include atheist in our organization either, are program does not target those who cant fulfill our Scout Oath to do there ‘duty to God’. Likewise we do target teaching the scouts that immoral acts are okay, that they should keep themselves physically strong, mentally awake, and ‘morally strait’ (no pun intended that’s how the Oath is phrased).
You might say ‘well maybe by your personal beliefs that homo-sex is a sin, but the BSA have no business taking a stance on it being wrong or right’ But this cannot be an option. When they intend to teach scouts to be morally strait, some kind of position has to taken on the issue one way or the other. If there was not there would be much confusion when one scout is taught by his parent homo-sex is wrong and yet his Troop allows an open practice-er of the immoral act as an adult leader.
The other option is to actively teach scouts there parents are wrong, and there pastors are wrong, and there entire system of faith is wrong about it being immoral so we can have gay scoutmasters without consequence. That would downgrade us from the most religiously diverse organization in the world to excluding all religious faiths who holy books or set of doctrines treat homo-sex as immoral.
So a position has to be taken on if it’s immoral or not, and we have taken one. If you do not like the position yourself start your own similar organization that teaches the opposite on the issue and targets the inclusion of gays, like the girl scouts target the inclusion of girls.
Your point about Kind is more or less the same, with the ridiculous assertion that our inclusiveness somehow instills ‘fear’. You justify this assertion by saying ‘it makes them feel not as good as…’ If that’s your case than the correct term to use would have been ‘in instills low self esteem’ not ‘fear’. Since that’s the case you make, while not budging on the stance that its sin could ‘lower there self-esteem’ we have to be ‘brave’ and discipline them if we really do care about them at all. To quote J. K. Rowling ‘it takes a great deal of courage to stand up to enemies, but it takes a great deal more to stand up to your friends’
And make no mistake confronting others about their behavior is hard. In my short time of experience as a assistant scoutmaster I’ve already had to have a special ‘Scout master conference’ with one of our newer scouts about his behavior. Its more fun and easier to just be the cool older scout/youngest adult leader that hangs with the scouts, talks to them about snakes that went through the campsite, plays poker with them using rocks we found as the chips, ect…. But to have to switch from that role sit down and talk to a young man that probably has liked you up till at least this point about his problem with being absolutely disrespectful to the other scouts, constantly shutting them down, is hard. And it would not work if he does not see his leaders on the same page. On is own he see’s not problem with his bullying.