• 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

It's our duty to maintain a consistent interpretation, to assure a fair application of the law to all people and their posterity. Inconsistent interpretations allow creep in the meaning of words and clauses, and consequently the fair application of the law.

Indeed. The ability to predict what the law is going to be held to mean by knowing what it has meant is the basis for the idea of the rule of law. Anything else is just Rule of Man with fancy window-dressing.
 
And since it has been interpreted to mean "manage" since the very early 1800's when many who contributed to the Constitution were still in governing position, this is why intent is so variable and fairly irrelevant.

Another awful argument, Captain. The actions of the founders and the SC after the Constitution was made the law of the land has not bearing on what words mean and what the clauses were intended to do. Even in the Constitution there was winners and losers, so the desires of the losers has no bearing on what was actually agreed upon when those individuals put their name on the document.

Tell me, captain. If I was give you the duty of putting down your philosophy and you chose words carefully to convey the message you want, but as soon as I get my hands on your philosophy I start to redefine the words written and ignore your intent to make it my own. Would that still put out the message you wanted or would it simply put out mine? If I was to in turn follow this philosophy myself with these now redefined words would I actually be following your philosophy or would I just be following my own? Do you see what I'm saying here? It's important we maintain the meaning of clauses and words as they were written so that we actually follow the document meant to restrict us instead of simply following something we find will do whatever we want.



Again, Henrin, since the early 1800's things have been interpreted in different ways. This is, again, why intent is fairly irrelevant because of the variable nature of the intentions and the generalized nature of many parts of the Constitution.

That has nothing to do with intent, you know. That has to do with desires of man much like it does today.

Like I said. I have have no use for those who practice original intent. The position is illogical as there was NO singular intent as there was no singular author and the wording was generalized to allow for future use and relative to allow for flexibility. You and I do not have a common frame of reference for which to discuss this issue.

And I already told you this is wrong. There were in fact winners and losers and like any other law there is an intent behind each clause.
 
Last edited:
It's our duty to maintain a consistent interpretation, to assure a fair application of the law to all people and their posterity. Inconsistent interpretations allow creep in the meaning of words and clauses, and consequently the fair application of the law.

Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things. Alexander Hamilton

The Constitution was never meant to be rigid or only specific. The Constitution is an amazing document that is not only applicable to the late 1700's, but applicable to today. Nearly all the information that we need is there. All one has to do is not be so rigid as to read it as if it is STILL the 1700's and nearly all of today's issues can be addressed by this document.
 
The Constitution was never meant to be rigid or only specific. The Constitution is an amazing document that is not only applicable to the late 1700's, but applicable to today. Nearly all the information that we need is there. All one has to do is not be so rigid as to read it as if it is STILL the 1700's and nearly all of today's issues can be addressed by this document.

The Constitution provides for the basic structure of our government, and was not meant to be interpreted to make it mean what any one individual or group thinks it should mean. There is a process to amend it, but without doing so any expansion of power is out of bounds IMV...
 
The Constitution was never meant to be rigid or only specific. The Constitution is an amazing document that is not only applicable to the late 1700's, but applicable to today. Nearly all the information that we need is there. All one has to do is not be so rigid as to read it as if it is STILL the 1700's and nearly all of today's issues can be addressed by this document.

Staying to one interpretation is not rigid, but logical and correct. When you write a document the meaning you put behind those words is what others should understand and follow. Yes, that means in at least part we should use definitions of words from 1787, not 2013.
 
Another awful argument, Captain. The actions of the founders and the SC after the Constitution was made the law of the land has not bearing on what words mean and what the clauses were intended to do. Even in the Constitution there was winners and losers, so the desires of the losers has no bearing on what was actually agreed upon when those individuals put their name on the document.

Which is precisely why, as I said, intent is fairly irrelevant. The Consitution was never mean to be rigid. The general nature of many of the provisions demonstrate that. Beyond that, we have no idea as to the actual intent of the "winners" since even the "winners" were not completely unified. They were not of one mindset.

Tell me, captain. If I was give you the duty of putting down your philosophy and you chose words carefully to convey the message you want, but as soon as I get my hands on your philosophy I start to redefine the words written and ignore your intent to make it my own. Would that still put out the message you wanted or would it simply put out mine? If I was to in turn follow this philosophy myself with these now redefined words would I actually be following your philosophy or would I just be following my own? Do you see what I'm saying here? It's important we maintain the meaning of clauses and words as they were written so that we actually follow the document meant to restrict us instead of simply following something we find will do whatever we want.

If I create a philosophy, my expectation is that whoever follows it will use it's basic tenets and inside those tenets add to it parts of themselves based on them and changing situations. None of us are mindless drones nor do we live in a vacuum. The Constitution is as such. It creates a set of tenets, a structure. Working within that structure, future people make it their own... as we have seen countless times, both based on themselves and based on change. Doing so does not alter the basic tenets of the document.

That has nothing to do with intent, you know. That has to do with desires of man much like it does today.

What it speaks to is the lack of relevancy of intent.

And I already told you this is wrong. There were in fact winners and losers and like any other law there is an intent behind each clause.

And I already explained how it is not wrong and have clarified the "winners" issue.
 
Staying to one interpretation is not rigid, but logical and correct.

No, it is rigid. The generalized nature of parts of the document demonstrate how other than a general sense, intent is not relevant. It is not logical to dictate that something general is actually specific.

When you write a document the meaning you put behind those words is what others should understand and follow. Yes, that means in at least part we should use definitions of words from 1787, not 2013.

Not if you are going to use the document in 2013. At that point, original intent because far less important in any kind of specific way.
 
The Constitution provides for the basic structure of our government, and was not meant to be interpreted to make it mean what any one individual or group thinks it should mean. There is a process to amend it, but without doing so any expansion of power is out of bounds IMV...

I agree with the statement I placed in bold. In fact, I think I've been saying that. That's why interpretation in order to address issues that are not specifically covered, but are addressed in a general way is appropriate.
 
I agree with the statement I placed in bold. In fact, I think I've been saying that. That's why interpretation in order to address issues that are not specifically covered, but are addressed in a general way is appropriate.

It might be how those issues are addressed that become contentious... :shock:
 
It might be how those issues are addressed that become contentious... :shock:

I would agree with that. However, contention is often part of the political process. The Constitutional Convention wasn't one made up solely of flowers and rainbows.
 
Most scout troops are faith based and many packs will succeed from BOA.

good for them, they wont be missed and are free to do so.
In fact i encourage it, they should make their own club and advertise it they are ant-gay.
 
good for them, they wont be missed and are free to do so.
In fact i encourage it, they should make their own club and advertise it they are ant-gay.

Since the scouts has been losing popularity over the years, I can't imagine that the heartland is anything but their main area of participation. So that could actually cause some trouble for them
 
Since the scouts has been losing popularity over the years, I can't imagine that the heartland is anything but their main area of participation. So that could actually cause some trouble for them

if this turns out true IMO id fine it very sad for this country and if it was up to me id rather go out of business supporting equality than exist in bigotry/discrimination.
 
if this turns out true IMO id fine it very sad for this country and if it was up to me id rather go out of business supporting equality than exist in bigotry/discrimination.

as someone mentioned earlier, they were going to get screwed on this no matter what way they went.
 
thats only a subjective opinion

It's a pretty hot topic and they have lots of ties within the conservative and religious community, at least from my local experiance. But it was pretty obvious that current views towards homosexuality were changing pretty rapidly and if they didn't act soon, they were going to find themselves on the wrong side of history. So I really don't see a way to navigate those circumstances without causing some trouble
 
It's a pretty hot topic and they have lots of ties within the conservative and religious community, at least from my local experiance. But it was pretty obvious that current views towards homosexuality were changing pretty rapidly and if they didn't act soon, they were going to find themselves on the wrong side of history. So I really don't see a way to navigate those circumstances without causing some trouble

again trouble is subjective is my point

if im in charge of i see no trouble nor would i care, thats what im getting at

it is possible that people in charge view it as trouble but again its just subjective
 
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.
So can girls. I don't understand why they don't merge girl scouts with boy scouts. Why should gay boys be the only ones to get access to each other on those lonely campout nights?
 
So can girls. I don't understand why they don't merge girl scouts with boy scouts. Why should gay boys be the only ones to get access to each other on those lonely campout nights?

Because it's better comedy when Larry David slams the door on a girl scout fundraiser. That's definitely worth keeping them separate. /s
 
So can girls. I don't understand why they don't merge girl scouts with boy scouts. Why should gay boys be the only ones to get access to each other on those lonely campout nights?

Because 'getting access to each other' is not what this is supposed to accomplish, as anyone with a brain could understand.
 
Because it's better comedy when Larry David slams the door on a girl scout fundraiser. That's definitely worth keeping them separate. /s
Wouldn't it have been funnier to slam the door on a boy scout and girl scout holding hands?
 
Because 'getting access to each other' is not what this is supposed to accomplish, as anyone with a brain could understand.
But 'getting access to each other' is exactly what is going to happen, as anyone with a brain should understand. As a liberal, you should be arguing the condoms for scouts angle, anyways. Or is that a little premature at this point?
 
I believe I previously stated this but I will say it again:

The BSA are just alienating troops/packs with their position here considering 70% of their packs are organized through the church.

We're now fractured in politics and that isn't enough for progressives - now we must be fractured in independent programs for children via political correctness.

Also, in what universe does sexuality have ABSOLUTELY anything to do with being a boyscout?

It has nothing to do with sexuality - yet this is an issue?

It seems the PC "gay rights" crowed is obsessed ****ING REALLY OBSESSED with sexualizing everything and everything.

Fine BSA will lose 70% of its troop membership..

Thanks for alienating yourselves gays - yet again.
 
But 'getting access to each other' is exactly what is going to happen, as anyone with a brain should understand.

Really? What basis do you have for this claim? Sure, I think we might have a case or two, bust just how often do you think this is going to happen?

As a liberal, you should be arguing the condoms for scouts angle, anyways.

It's cute when conservatives pretend to know what I believe.

Or is that a little premature at this point?

There are a few things premature at this point.
 
Back
Top Bottom