• 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

There are certain areas of necessity where the government needs to step in or else they create an environment where white privilege becomes a huge problem. Things like discriminatory land sales, discriminatory sales of fodd to black people, discriminatory hiring practices, and things that deny a necessity based on prejudice are increadibly harmful to minorities. I use black people as an example but you could put hispanics, gays, women, or certain religious groups within this. I am all up for private clubs who operate on voluntary and non-necessary membership to be allowed to discriminate.

I would even be up for a small number of segregated communities to operate. I havce seen a reason for things like restricted elderly communities, and even communities where strict religious beliefs are help by it's voluntary membership. I lived in NY and there were a few orthodox jewish communities and i could see why the orthodox members might want to live in seclusion. But I think over all that those communities should be in areas where they do not restrict property ownership because it is needed for minorities. For example a jewish community in a city would put stress on the other non-jewish people because they take up finite resources of housing and land. But if you put it out in some less populated areas with tons of land resources I have no problem with it. I just used jewish and elderly communities because I have seen them do fine in places like the northeast and Florida.

In essence the US has shown that when allowed overwhelming practices of prejudice by private business cause massive disparities in diversity and wealth opportunities for minorities and harm the community. They create a power structure that becomes monopolized by the prejudiced factions and that simply cannot be allowed in a country that values opportunity for all. We had that freedom for a time and we showed that it damages peoples lives on a massive scale when allowed to operate unchecked. Don't blame the government because people cannot operate in a moral and ethical manner.

Was that a constitutional argument? No? I didn't think so.
 
[/FONT][/COLOR]BBC News - Boy Scouts of America votes to ease ban on gay members

Good for the Scouts.

And I eagerly await the freakishly hateful statements that will inevitably come from people like the Family Research Council.[/FONT][/COLOR]






Later I'll read the comments on this thread.

Right now I'll just ask: How is this not a good 1st step by the Scouts?

Any ideas?





"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

No one has a right to be in the boy scouts though.
 
I'm not exactly clear how you can divorce application from interpretation, unless your point here is the use of citing facts, which isn't an argument per se. I'm not sure why you seem to think that there is consensus on the application of any given law, and without such consensus, an appeal to authority, again, begs the question.

No, I can point to current caselaw and supreme court rulings on vehicle searches during a traffic stop (establishing how the law is currently applied). People disagreeing with those rulings is another matter enturely
 
And that is precisely why an Appeal To Authority is fallacious...because it begs the question....

The appeal to authority logical fallacy is a bit different than what you think it is. Here is a good description:

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.

Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate

If the authority you are citing is the actual authority on the issue being discussed, the appeal to authority logical fallacy does not apply.
 
The appeal to authority logical fallacy is a bit different than what you think it is. Here is a good description:



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

While true, such authority is generally still not above questioning. With US law, the supreme court is, on the point of current application. Naturally you can disagree with their arguments and reasons behind their rulings, but it's not going to amount to much in the realm of actual application
 
While true, such authority is generally still not above questioning. With US law, the supreme court is, on the point of current application. Naturally you can disagree with their arguments and reasons behind their rulings, but it's not going to amount to much in the realm of actual application

One can always question authority. Doesn't alter the fact of who is the authority.
 
One can always question authority. Doesn't alter the fact of who is the authority.

Of course, people that question them can in fact be right.

We should not simply say the SC has the authority and therefore there is nothing to talk about. What good are the people if they go along with the will of the SC without ever even thinking of doubting them?
 
Was that a constitutional argument? No? I didn't think so.

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?
 
The ban on openly gay adult leaders is still disgusting though.

I don't agree with you. "Openly gay" has some connotations that could turn a boy scout troop into a joke. Unless they're asking the question on forms volunteer leaders are asked to fill out, I have no problem with it at all.
 
I don't agree with you. "Openly gay" has some connotations that could turn a boy scout troop into a joke. Unless they're asking the question on forms volunteer leaders are asked to fill out, I have no problem with it at all.

First, it is the boyscouts choice as a private club to say no based on their criteria. However, from my own opinion it becomes an issue of what people consider openly gay. If you are talking about losing your job because you are in a relationship with a same sex partner on your off hours and not discussing with the boys, but also not hiding when you are on your own free time then I would oppose it. If you are talking about a gay guy who starts discussing relationships in the context of being a scout leader where clearly sexual discussions of any sort are not a part of the scouts operations I could agree with them removing such a person. The reality is that people are not sending their kids to the scouts for dating advice or sexual education, and actually the organization works on a basis that it does not promote or discuss such activities because the children are there for non-relationship activities.

The one thing i do not agree with, though it is the scouts choice to get rid of them, is banning people based on them being involved in a same sex relationship outside of their scouting responsibilities. They do not look at a straight scout leader who is openly married to a woman and say that their open heterosexual relationship promotes sexual activity that the scouts try to eliminate from their activities. I would have to think that a heterosexual scout leader who walked in and started telling the kids about his weekend in vegas where he was banging this hot chick would be removed from his duties, or at least i would hope that happens. It just becomes about what they consider "open" homosexuality from their scout leaders. In all honesty sexual activity of either nature should not be a part of the actions of a scout leader during the times when they are acting as the scout leader. It is also quite evident by the number of homosexuals who keep their sexual activities separate from their employment that they are very capable overall of not discussing their relationships during work so it is not like the scouts can make the argument it has to be present in their performance of duties in the scouts. Still, it is their choice and I hope some day they recognize that homosexuals can be responsible youth leaders who guide scouts without inserting sexual discussion into their guidance, just like straight people are.
 
I don't agree with you. "Openly gay" has some connotations that could turn a boy scout troop into a joke. Unless they're asking the question on forms volunteer leaders are asked to fill out, I have no problem with it at all.

Openly gay does not have any connotations to it. Why should a gay person have to hide who they are?
 
Openly gay does not have any connotations to it. Why should a gay person have to hide who they are?

I know some gay guys that are "just like everybody else." I also know some gay guys that are flamboyantly gay. You know what I mean. (I don't see this same flamboyance in lesbians at all. It's the flamboyance I'm thinking about. Many moms send their kids to Boy Scouts for the male role models they provide in their leadership. There are some gays who don't model that very well. That's just a fact.

I'm betting it's a don't-ask/don't-tell policy. It's a private organization....given that, I think they've taken a great first step. And the right one.
 
I know some gay guys that are "just like everybody else." I also know some gay guys that are flamboyantly gay. You know what I mean. (I don't see this same flamboyance in lesbians at all. It's the flamboyance I'm thinking about. Many moms send their kids to Boy Scouts for the male role models they provide in their leadership. There are some gays who don't model that very well. That's just a fact.

I'm betting it's a don't-ask/don't-tell policy. It's a private organization....given that, I think they've taken a great first step. And the right one.

facepalm.jpg
 
Great news.

I never understood the ban. Gay boys can certainly be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly,courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.

yes l agree

maybe heterosexuals are just jelly
 
Come on, Your Star. You have met these men. Don't be blinded by your own orientation. Be honest.

Assuming an openly gay man is like the stereotype is just ridiculous.
 
It's an organization that prides itself on upholding tradition. Kind of obvious why it would be initially resistant to social change*.

*the vast improvements the gay right's movement has made in just the past 10 years is rather astounding in it's pace

Any tradition the scouts uphold is based on responsibility and personal trust. Never once did I hear about any 'no-gay' tradition.
 
Can you imagine, a bunch of teenagers giving someone flack for being different?

Besides being a rather common trend in everyone's youth, you might be confusing the reaction from his peers with a ban on participation. The former is not the later, and something the scouts have little control over

You'd be surprised. Nowadays, teens still use 'gay, 'fag' and 'faggots', but they rarely are intended as gay slurs.

"you might be confusing the reaction from his peers with a ban on participation."

Can you clarify this?
 
kids teasing someone for being gay isn't the same as the kid actually being gay (as you even outlined in your original post). Any competent scoutmaster/person can easily recognize this

What makes you think the scoutmasters wouldn't have asked him to step aside just because they didn't want to actually deal with the situation? Nearly everyone thought he was. I wouldn't have been surprised if they hadn't just tossed him out to avoid actually dealing with it.
 
So your argument is not one of reason, but simply one of appealing to authority? Would you like to try something that isn't a fallacy? Perhaps you would like to argue against my logic with logic of your own?

The 'authority' I asked for you to cite is the very basis for our form of governance, the body with the legal logic that has guided us thus far. If I had to say your 'logic' is flawed as each and every example isn't how we govern ourselves.

No 'right' you claim is without limits. In a purely capitalistic world, perhaps but we at least pretend to be a form of democracy.

You have a right to hang with your friends but not to exclude a man from your hotel or diner due to his race, or sexual orientation. When it comes to the Boy Scouts, the topic at hand, I don't believe a court order forced them to accept gay boys in the Scouts, so your 'rights' were never in question.

The Courts have long since ruled civil rights are in fact rights and a business open to the public must not discriminate.

I understand there are some who feel their particular set of individual rights trump the set we use now, how some ever until the minority who feel like you change the laws we use, and when it suits some we are a nation of laws, then the individual rights you claim to have are not possible.
 
And yet they continue to discriminate against girls...
 
Assuming an openly gay man is like the stereotype is just ridiculous.

I'm not assuming that at all. I am saying that some of them are. Why can't you acknowledge that? Come up with a counter to the argument that a flamboyant, openly-gay guy in Scouts would be uncomfortable to an awful lot of people? Or don't you think that's true?
 
The reality is this is the beginning of the end for the BSA. The activist that pushed for this will next push to end gender based scouting all together and put the boy scouts and girl scouts in one group called the scouts. These people hate everything the BSA stands for and their intent is to destroy or at least fundamentally change the entire organization.

You have no clue what you're talking about. This is a great thing for the BSA. There was no reason to have this ban.
 
Back
Top Bottom