• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boy Scouts vote to welcome gay members

ocean515 said:
What does an openly Gay Boy Scout look like, and what would they be doing in Scouting that would indicate they were?
Click to expand...

You wouldn't know. The only difference is that they won't get kicked out if they come out to someone.

Do you expect that in a group of teenage boys, NOBODY's going to talk about sex?
 
roguenuke said:
I think I'm simply lost on why this was even brought up. Bullying will be part of scouts as much as it is with the ban as without.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly the point I was making. When the original anecdote was communicated here, it was as if this was going to have some major impact on such bullying. Because "there is less validation for it" from authority and it would be "less fun".

that is naive and totally ignores the dynamics involved with it
 
Henrin said:
No, it's not.
Click to expand...

Then it should be all good. They didn't allow it before, now they do. They chose to allow it, that should be the end right?

Apparently some people have a problem with that which is why we have a 20+ page thread about it.
 
rocket88 said:
You wouldn't know. The only difference is that they won't get kicked out if they come out to someone.

Do you expect that in a group of teenage boys, NOBODY's going to talk about sex?
Click to expand...

So kids were being kicked out all the time if they came out to their friends. How would anyone know?
 
tererun said:
Is the constitution automatically right in all aspects? No, so any argument based on it's perfection are invalid. So now that your argument which is based on the constitution being automatically correct is invalid do you have anything else to support your reasoning?
Click to expand...

Did I say the constitution was perfect? No. What I said, is that discrimination laws violate the right to association, property rights, and the thirteenth amendment. Are you claiming you want to do away with all of those rights?
 
rocket88 said:
Then it should be all good. They didn't allow it before, now they do. They chose to allow it, that should be the end right?

Apparently some people have a problem with that which is why we have a 20+ page thread about it.
Click to expand...

In this case, it is. I support using social pressure on organizations that discriminate.
 
ocean515 said:
So kids were being kicked out all the time if they came out to their friends. How would anyone know?
Click to expand...

Probably not. In which case, what's the difference? Now the official policy reflects the reality, why is that bad?
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Which is exactly the point I was making. When the original anecdote was communicated here, it was as if this was going to have some major impact on such bullying. Because "there is less validation for it" from authority and it would be "less fun".

that is naive and totally ignores the dynamics involved with it
Click to expand...

There could be a decrease, but it will likely not be significant or be countered by those who just start "teasing" to try to force gay scouts out. It will be more about how such situations are handled by the adults, which is going to be different in every troop.
 
roguenuke said:
There could be a decrease, but it will likely not be significant or be countered by those who just start "teasing" to try to force gay scouts out. It will be more about how such situations are handled by the adults, which is going to be different in every troop.
Click to expand...

See, we agree
 
ocean515 said:
So kids were being kicked out all the time if they came out to their friends. How would anyone know?
Click to expand...

They were being found out because they were open at school about it or it was mentioned in something such as a news article or acceptance speech, and then it was reported back to scout masters/higher ups in the BSA. They even took some badges these boys had already earned from them.
 
shrubnose said:
Right.

And no one has a right to born either.
Click to expand...

The right to life.

Believe what you want to believe.

Check back with me in thirty years and tell me how your wacky ideas are working out.

Have a nice day and a wonderful life.
Click to expand...

Not forcing property owners to accept everyone on their property is a wacky idea??

I'm guessing you wouldn't have a problem if they made the same rules for your home or your body, right?
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
They were being found out because they were open at school about it or it was mentioned in something such as a news article or acceptance speech, and then it was reported back to scout masters/higher ups in the BSA. They even took some badges these boys had already earned from them.
Click to expand...

They took badges they had already earned? What badges would those be?

Do you think there are any values or opinions a voluntary organization should maintain as a requirement for membership?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The appeal to authority logical fallacy is a bit different than what you think it is. Here is a good description:
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of what the common definition of such a fallacy is, which doesn't impress me since most people, especially on the internet, don't have a clue what formal logic is.



If the authority you are citing is the actual authority on the issue being discussed, the appeal to authority logical fallacy does not apply.
Click to expand...


You're still begging the question, which you can not avoid. You can not determine the truth of a proposition from it's consequences, since false premises sometimes yield true consequences. You would have to know all of the consequences, throughout all time, to make such a determination. There simply doesn't exist a method to determine what is true. We can only ever know what isn't true through contradiction, which, as an aside, is why all scientific theories are tentative.
 
Henrin said:
Did I say the constitution was perfect? No. What I said, is that discrimination laws violate the right to association, property rights, and the thirteenth amendment. Are you claiming you want to do away with all of those rights?
Click to expand...

You mean all those things that didn't apply to black people when the constitution was formed and had to be added after because the constitution wasn't perfect? You argued the constitution was right and therefor you were correct for agreeing with it. Since the constitution was not right and it has gone through many forms and still has the opportunity to be changed because it could be wrong, your argument fails when it bases it's entire premise on the constitution being correct.

Now if you would like to argue on the merrits of things like non-discrimination and equality please do create a rational reason for doing so and apply it to what I said. But since your argument was based solely on "the constitution says so" and absolutely nothing else i only need to dismantle the idea that the constitution only says the correct things. Do not get pissy with me because you made a crappy argument.
 
tererun said:
You mean all those things that didn't apply to black people when the constitution was formed and had to be added after because the constitution wasn't perfect? You argued the constitution was right and therefor you were correct for agreeing with it. Since the constitution was not right and it has gone through many forms and still has the opportunity to be changed because it could be wrong, your argument fails when it bases it's entire premise on the constitution being correct.
Click to expand...

The thirteenth amendment is redundant. Even before it was put in place no one had the right to own another human being or the right to anyone else's labor or service.

Btw, your argument is bizarre. I'm making a constitutional argument as it stands now. If you would like to change the constitution to make my argument invalid you would have to rip into some pretty well supported elements. Good luck.
 
Last edited:
ocean515 said:
They took badges they had already earned? What badges would those be?

Do you think there are any values or opinions a voluntary organization should maintain as a requirement for membership?
Click to expand...

Those which they put as part of their mission, which have no logical gripe with homosexuality.

As for the badge thing, I think I misunderstood. I know that they have kicked out some Eagle Scouts for being gay, but I can't find where they have actually taken back badges/medals. My bad. It is actually the people sending back their badges until full equality is gained.
 
rocket88 said:
No idea, but apparently the BSA felt it was necessary. Given that it was in the past, I think it's fair to have one now.
Click to expand...

Well, it seems that is true. I suppose time will tell whether the Gay Lobby will have won the battle, but lost the war.
 
ocean515 said:
Well, it seems that is true. I suppose time will tell whether the Gay Lobby will have won the battle, but lost the war.
Click to expand...

God, you so desperately want this to be true, don't you?
 
roguenuke said:
Those which they put as part of their mission, which have no logical gripe with homosexuality.

As for the badge thing, I think I misunderstood. I know that they have kicked out some Eagle Scouts for being gay, but I can't find where they have actually taken back badges/medals. My bad. It is actually the people sending back their badges until full equality is gained.
Click to expand...

I got you. I was wondering what badges would be taken back. It seemed a bit absurd. "Sorry, no hiking badge for you".
 
Henrin said:
The right to life.



Not forcing property owners to accept everyone on their property is a wacky idea??

I'm guessing you wouldn't have a problem if they made the same rules for your home or your body, right?
Click to expand...





Wrong.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act is still in effect and you will never do away with it.





"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom