Write a paragraph response to the debate. First, before reading the debate, note if you are for or against the statement. Then note if your position changed or remained the same after you read the debate (after reading the debate, do you agree more with the pro or con position?) Give any insights on the debate or debate topic.
Topic: The Boy Scouts should not have barred a gay man from being a group leader because being gay does not affect his qualifications for the job
Vivian:
Con
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States declares:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In June of 2000, the Supreme Court pronounced that it is unconstitutional for the state to require the Boy Scouts to appoint a homosexual man, James Dale, as a scoutmaster. The decision was based off of the First Amendments guarantee of free association. If the scouts had not been a nonprofit, private organization, it wouldve been a different story. Because they are a private organization, the anti-discrimination laws do not extend to the Scouts. Its not a civil right to help raise other peoples children, but it is a privilege.
The Boy Scouts are a private organization with traditional morals whom parents have put their trust in to raise their boys to become men. The purpose of the group is to bring people with the same morals and values together. They have a Scouts Oath which contends, On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight. The Boy Scouts pledge that they will remain morally straight and it would be hard to do that if they had to look up to a gay scoutmaster since children are easily influenced. Allowing a gay person to take leadership in such a group could disrupt their conservative views.
While it may seem ignorant to exercise the right to exclude others, it is necessary for private groups, like the Boy Scouts, in order to define themselves and pave their own moral course. If the Boy Scouts were required to recruit a leader who practiced morals that clashed with theirs, then heterosexuals could declare the right to lead LGBTQ+ groups (Johnson 597) and white people could assert the right to lead groups for people of color. These situations dont make much sense, parallel to a gay man seeking a position of leadership in the Boy Scouts.
The Boy Scouts assert that having a sexual orientation other than heterosexual is not morally straight or clean and homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the Oath. While some may argue that being homosexual is morally straight and clean, that is not the position that the Boy Scouts take. The Chief Scout Executive contends that homosexuality and leadership in Scouting are inappropriate and that they will continue to be selective about who can or cannot be a leader.
Works Cited
Rehnquist. BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE. LII / Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, 28 June 2000, www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699.ZO.html (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..
Johnson, Steffen N. A Case the Scouts Had to Win. The New York Times, The New York Times, 30 June 2000, www.nytimes.com/2000/06/30/opinion/a-case-the-scou
(Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..
Ashlee (Rebuttal and Discussion Question):
I understand the Boy Scouts of America is a private organization with traditional morals. I know that being a homosexual is not traditional for people like the ones supporting and the ones active in the Boy Scout community. Just because a man is homosexual does not mean he does not follow the values followed by the Boy Scouts. People were scared that his sexuality could influence their conservative views and ultimately pave a new path for the Boy Scouts. If these boy scouts are taught to discriminate, based off sexuality, they are being taught to be intolerable, and that is not morally straight. If the BSA was not a private organization, James Dale would most likely not have been barred. So what makes it okay to allow discrimination with a private organization, just because they are private. This man, James Dale, was more than qualified to become a Scout Master. He believed in what the Boy Scouts represented and wanted to be honorable and help young boys realize what The BSA was all about. But because James Dale was gay, suddenly his efforts were shut down and his pride in the BSA diminished. Anyone could ruin the BSAs morals, values, and teachings. You do not have to be gay to infiltrate an organization. So for them to say it clashes with their ideals is nonsense, theyre just intolerable.
Do you think traditional rules for such an honorable association should be modified to fit within our societies growing standards?
Ashlee:
PRO
In 2000, The Boy Scout Association barred a gay man from being a Boy Scout troop leader simply because he was gay. They did not bar him because he did not know the boy scout oath or because he did not have enough badges. James Dale was barred because of his sexual orientation and the discomfort it brought to the parents of the boy scouts. The Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to require a boy scout troop to admit a gay scout master because of free association under the First amendment. Although it was not a civil right being violated, this action was still discriminative towards a qualified man, because this man likes men. The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law (Wikipedia). In Steffen N. Johnsons article, A Case the Scouts Had to Win, he said that
it is not a civil right to assist in raising other peoples children (Johnson 596). Johnson was referring to a scout masters job as a leader to instill values and morals into a boy scout. Basically parents did not want a homosexual man raising and teaching their sons, even though there is no reason a gay man cannot be just as qualified as a heterosexual man. By not allowing James Dale to be a Scoutmaster, The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) was promoting ignorance. The only difference between a homosexual man and heterosexual man is sexual orientation. It is as if the parents believed a gay man as a troop leader could influence these young boy scouts to become gay by raising their children. The BSA resulted to discrimination, just to ease the discomfort of the uneducated parents. If this situation had something to do with race, there would be no acceptable reason to barr this man, so why was it okay to barr him based of sexual orientation. Race does not make a man less qualified, or stupid, or a threat and neither does someone being homosexual. In the United States, everyone is supposedly held to equal standards, so why is it that were are allowing this country to become less unified? But a group should not need to have an antigay agenda to hold the view that homosexual behavior is wrong (Johnson 597) Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but at the end of the day someones sexual preference does not affect you or your kids lives personally. If a parent does not want their child around a gay troop leader, they can either switch troops or leave the Boy Scouts of America all together. Why was James Dale the one inconvenienced when the parents were the ones to create the problem? James Dale sued the BSA for being unlawfully discriminative towards him, and the New Jersey Courts agreed with him, but the Supreme Court didnt because forcing a group to accept certain members may impair its ability to express those views, and only those views, that intends to express (Johnson 596). Boy scouts are supposed to take steps and challenges, and learn from their elders on how to become respectable and prepared men. As said before, the Boy Scouts of America are taught morals and values. What are these boy scouts being taught when the BSA is not treating people equally or not letting homosexuals benefit or feel empowered by the BSA? The article spoke a lot about how private organizations or groups have the right to free association especially if it makes it more difficult to express their beliefs and values. Their beliefs and values could be maintained and taught just as well by a heterosexual man, such as James Dale, but they were too intolerable to realize. It was wrong to barr this man based off of his sexual orientation.
Works Cited
Johnson, Steffen N. A Case the Scouts Had to Win Chapter 15, 30 June. 2000
Boy Scouts of America. Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 16 Feb. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/Boy_Scouts_of_America
Vivian (Rebuttal and Discussion Question):
Ashlee argues that sexual orientation wouldnt disqualify a person from doing their job correctly, that a homosexual man would do just as well as a heterosexual man. However, the leaders of the Boy Scouts are expected to portray the image of masculinity and dominance. A homosexual man is the opposite of that because they are feminine and have flamboyant personalities. The Boy Scouts are a private organization with strict morals and they like to follow tradition. If they were required to let a homosexual man be a leader of the boy scouts, then they would be defying their own morals. A gay man like James Dale advocates a different position than the Boy Scouts. Letting a man like that become a leader would impair the groups ability to express strictly those views that they intend to express.
Ashlee also claims that the Boy Scouts resulted to discrimination against gay men to appease the parents, but shes wrong. In 1978, the President of the Boy Scouts and the Chief Scout executive expressed their feelings towards homosexual people. They believe that homosexuality and leadership dont go hand in hand and that it is inappropriate. Its inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and clean. She also states that sexual orientation doesnt pose a threat, but it did pose a threat to the parents. They were worried for their boys safety.
She mentions multiple times throughout her argument that the Boy Scouts of America are taught morals and values and that its contradictory of them to treat a man differently because of sexual orientation. However, it is in their oath that a Scout must be morally straight. While the Scouts dont have an anti-gay agenda, they can still disagree with someones sexual orientation all while being respectful to the person.
Question: The Chief Scout Executive of the BSA claims that being a scout leader is a privilege, not a right. James Dale had already been an assistant scoutmaster when he was expelled due to his sexual orientation. The Supreme Courts main argument is that it would be against the BSA morals to let Dale be a scoutmaster. However he was already an assistant scoutmaster and he was assisting the scoutmaster just fine and there were no problems until they discovered that he was gay. Therefore the BSA isnt concerned about his ability to teach, just about his sexual orientation. Agree or disagree?
Ashlee argues that sexual orientation wouldnt disqualify a person from doing their job correctly, that a homosexual man would do just as well as a heterosexual man. However, the leaders of the Boy Scouts are expected to portray the image of masculinity and dominance. A homosexual man is the opposite of that because they are feminine and have flamboyant personalities. The Boy Scouts are a private organization with strict morals and they like to follow tradition. If they were required to let a homosexual man be a leader of the boy scouts, then they would be defying their own morals. A gay man like James Dale advocates a different position than the Boy Scouts. Letting a man like that become a leader would impair the groups ability to express strictly those views that they intend to express.
