Resolved: The Boy Scouts of America should end its policy banning gay membership.

I extend my thanks to ScarletGhost4396 for his latest round. Before I break this down point by point, it's important to keep in mind what Pro is asking of us: he is arguing that a privately run club in "the Land of the Free" ought to alter its membership policies. His is an argument against liberty.DiscriminationPro starts by imposing a double standard. He says, "[Discrimination] is morally permissible when when [sic] the basis of the discrimination is on individual merit rather than generalization or belonging to a particular group of people." To be consistent, he agrees that the BSA (as well as the Girl Scouts) is immoral in discriminating against the opposite sex, though he also insists it is ultimately irrelevant. On the contrary, it is absolutely relevant because under Pro's line of reasoning, clubs should are immoral for discrimination based on sex, race, religion, and even age. So, the BSA is just as immoral for not allowing 40 year old men to be boy scouts as it is for not allowing girls to be boy scouts.In other words, clubs are immoral for being… well… clubs. We are not talking about public school admissions, government positions, or private sector job interviews. We are talking about a private club. Clubs are ubiquitous in both number and variety. Clubs are designed specifically to give people a place to feel comfortable. If one club is unsuitable, there is surely another. Better yet, new clubs can be instantly created to fill a missing niche. But according to Pro's logic, even these simplest of social organizations are inherently immoral unless they allow membership to absolutely everyone. Hispanic-only clubs? Immoral. Senior-citizen-only clubs? Immoral. Female-only clubs? Immoral. Muslim-only clubs? Immoral. Pro's position reduces to absurdity.The BSA wants its club composed of certain members of society, just like a church wants its members composed of those committed to that organization's faith. Even if more than 50% of Americans support same-sex marriage, the BSA should still be granted the liberty to define its membership policies, especially given the fact that there are alternative choices.Santorum/Clinton AllegoriesThe stories regarding the Santorum campaign and Clinton administration are false analogies. The main issue is that the BSA is a values-based organization, and homosexuality is a value. In this case, there is no room for compromise. In the case of campaigns and administrations, these are based on productivity even if values ultimately factor into the final product. Pro's allegories are also a red herring. The issue is not whether or not compromise is possible, but whether or not a private club should be forced to compromise in the first place.Defending my ThesisMy opponent criticizes a straw man version of my thesis. He focuses on the legality portion rather than the thesis as a whole. In no way was I suggesting that "legal" equals "moral." The whole thesis is saying that a law abiding private club should be allowed to make its own policies. Now, if it became illegal for any club to ban homosexual membership, then my opponent would win according to my thesis. Thankfully, such draconian laws are not in place, and liberty still holds some value.BrandingMy opponent criticizes my argument from the perspective of branding by arguing that statistics favor more progressive values in this nation. So what? The point is that the BSA should be able to define its membership. Even if it's a huge mistake, who is Pro to decide? Why should his values be forced upon the BSA? If Pro is right and the costs of the BSA's current policies are severe, isn't that a good thing? Certainly such costs will either force the BSA to change its policies or it will become defunct, leaving a large gap for more progressive clubs to fill.I must also point out the lack of conclusions that may be drawn from Pro's statistics. Even though 53% of Americans support same-sex marriage (a legality issue) it does not follow that the same percentage of Americans considers homosexuality to be moral (an ethical issue). The BSA has no doubt examined the landscape of public opinion and either decided that it's not a threat or that it serves as an opportunity to acquire an even greater conservative following. Who knows? Who cares?ConclusionI think I have made it clear what's at stake here. Clubs like the BSA are not running our country. No one is forced into membership and brainwashed to hate homosexuals. Membership is voluntary and alternatives are plentiful. This leaves my opponent with one very crucial question:Why the BSA?Why must the BSA change its policies? Why can't homosexuals join Navigators USA instead? Is it because the BSA is more prestigious? If so, how ironic that Pro would criticize my arguments on branding when it's the BSA brand that he's ultimately after.I should point out that despite Pro mentioning the First Amendment in one of his headings, he never actually addressed the issue that the First Amendment protects the right to peaceably assemble. He never rebutted my argument that clubs are, in fact, peaceful assemblies of people centered around a common purpose. This is easily the most damaging evidence against his position.Pro has an uphill battle ahead of him. He needs to provide a solid argument that would warrant the elimination of constitutionally secured liberties. He needs to show us how it is better to force the BSA into submission over simply choosing a different organization. He should even make at least some kind of effort as to why homosexual discrimination is relevant while sexual discrimination is not. Until he summits this hill, I contend that the resolution is negated.