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

The resolution is seeking to convince you that The Boy Scouts of America (hereafter the BSA) should end its policy of disallowing gay membership. The resolution could be taken one of two ways based on the various meanings of the term "should": the BSA is morally obligated to end this policy or the BSA would benefit from ending this policy. I will respond to both interpretations. The Question of Moral ObligationThis is where my opponent focuses his arguments, insisting that the BSA is engaging in immoral behavior. The problem is that Pro's position is arbitrary. Why is discrimination against homosexuals better or worse than discrimination against girls? The BSA will certainly never allow female membership, yet such discrimination is acceptable because the BSA is a club. This puts my opponent between a rock and a hard place. If he agrees that the policy on banning female membership is permissible, then he must admit that discrimination is indeed within a club's right. If, on the other hand, he agrees that all discrimination—even female membership—is immoral, then all scouting clubs are immoral. Moreoever, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution grants citizens the right to peaceably assemble, and clubs are groups "of people organized for a common purpose. " [1] It is impossible for a club centered on certain values to do so without discriminating against people with opposing values. If they allow membership to everyone—even those with directly opposing values—then they cease to be a club and risk falling into disarray. Indeed, it is human nature for like-minded people to congregate. Even homosexuals have their own organizations. So, to what authority does my opponent appeal when he insists that any organization must adhere to his own values? As long as the BSA is not breaking any laws, and there are alternative scouting organizations in existence, the BSA is under no moral obligation to change its membership policies. That is my simple thesis for this defense. Whether such policies are old fashioned, mean, and negative for our community is ultimately irrelevant. The BSA has the federally granted right to govern its membership as it sees fit, especially since Americans are free to choose any competing scouting organization. The Question of BenefitThe Boy Scouts of America® is a brand—and a strong one at that. Strong brands take years to build and regular effort to maintain. A strong brand is powerful when it evokes a predetermined response from people. The Coca-Cola Company likes it when Coca-Cola® evokes thoughts of refreshment. But a brand's real power is when the thought moves in the opposite direction. The Coca-Cola Company loves it when people think of Coca-Cola® in response to thirst. That's the power of branding. While the Coca-Cola Company wants their brand to apply to everyone (since the goal is profit), clubs such as the BSA neither want nor need to be all inclusive. From the BSA website [2]:The Boy Scouts of America is one of the nation's largest and most prominent values-based youth development organizations. The BSA provides a program for young people that builds character, trains them in the responsibilities of participating citizenship, and develops personal fitness. For over a century, the BSA has helped build the future leaders of this country by combining educational activities and lifelong values with fun. The Boy Scouts of America believes — and, through over a century of experience, knows — that helping youth is a key to building a more conscientious, responsible, and productive society. Notice how the BSA is a values-based organization. While the BSA can choose any set of values under the sun, they have settled on the current ones for a reason. According to a study of American values conducted by Harris Interactive and commissioned by the BSA in 2005 [3], they want the BSA brand to primarily equate to family values, personal life satisfaction, and community involvement. For whatever reason (and the reason itself is irrelevant), the leaders of the BSA have determined that gay membership does not comport with their vision for the BSA brand. While that might turn away Americans with more progressive values, it also attracts Americans with more conservative ones. The BSA is defined by its values, and to insist on gay membership is to insist on a change in brand. Looking again at the Coca-Cola Company, we can see the pitfalls of redefining the brand. New Coke [4] was introduced in 1985, halting production of their then 99-year old formula. While this moment in marketing history will live in infamy, it's interesting to note that New Coke was not a commercial failure, but a social one. New Coke was selling well on target with company predictions, but ironically, bashing New Coke became a sign of loyalty to a suddenly unavailable product. Angered consumers inundated the company with angry letters and phone calls. Months later, Coca-Cola Classic was reintroduced and within six months was outselling Pepsi at more than twice the rate. That's the power of a strong brand. It's easy to conceive that a change of the BSA brand is not something the organization can take lightly. It is unlikely that ending the ban on gay membership will happen without some kind of fallout. Remember, existing members have chosen the BSA for its values, much like soda drinkers are loyal to Coca-Cola for its taste. There is every reason for the BSA leadership to expect a strong backlash to such change. Moreover, there is no guarantee that even experimenting with this policy will not result in permanent loss of support and irreparable damage to the brand. As I stated before, the BSA is neither (a) the only values-based organization available nor (b) a public institution. There are other scouting organizations such as Navigators USA, which is "coed, non-religious, and inclusive. " [5] All competing scouting clubs were created precisely because their founders wanted to reach an alternative demographic. The fact that the BSA has competition is another good reason for the BSA not to allow gay membership, as it serves to increase their distinctiveness, which again, is good for the brand. While Coke wants to sell to everyone, clubs do not want everyone. The BSA is targeting a particular demographic, and the more the BSA stands out to certain like-minded individuals, the better. Whether my opponent likes it or not, there is still a massive population of Americans with conservative family values. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that maintaining their current membership policies is in their best interest for the foreseeable future. ConclusionIf you want to support a scouting organization that allows gay membership, then do it. They already exist. Support them. It's your right and, dare I say, your duty to do so if you want to send a clear message to more conservative minding organizations. Perhaps twenty years from now the BSA will fade away as progressive values become dominant in America. Perhaps then the BSA will reconsider their membership policies. In the meantime, the BSA is under no moral obligation to admit members that are not in line with their preferred values. The leaders of BSA should end its policy on banning gay membership if and when they feel a need to rebrand themselves. Until then, it is in their best interest to institute policies that satisfy their constituents. So, from both a moral and cost/benefit standpoint, the BSA should not end its policy on banning gay membership. Sources . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... . http://www.scouting.org... . http://www.scouting.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.troop97.net...