• 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!

Gay Teacher in Texas Wins Court Fight

People leaving the churches is not an inevitability

A severe enough and traumatic enough national event and people will be flocking back to churches.
Different churches including those accepting of homosexuality. Only idiots believe that homosexuality causes any sort of natural disasters.

And others will separate "homosexuality is a sin" belief from Christianity and other religions as we evolve.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
None of my teachers in any of my schools showed us pictures of their fiancees, husbands, or wives.

They weren't supposed to bring their personal lives into the classroom. It would have been deeply unprofessional.

In point of fact, I knew very few of my teachers' first names and nothing about their marital status. Students had no business knowing, and teachers had no business discussing it.

While I can't say whether Ms. Bailey was trying to indoctrinate children into acceptance of homosexuality, I can say that any teacher engaging in this kind of unprofessional conduct--homosexual or not--should be censured or fired.

If this kind of thing is now tolerated in schools, that's one more reason to choose private schools with higher standards, or--better still--tutors for homeschooling.

My third grade teacher brought her fiance to class and introduced us to him. We all pitched in and bought them a wedding present.

What world do you live in?
 
It is not unprofessional for teachers to talk about their personal lives, appropriately, with their children, as it helps to foster trust and compassion, sharing and bonding.
None of which are necessary for learning, and none of which kids should have to endure if the exposition normalizes immoral behaviour--intentionally or not.

I don’t believe you. I don’t think you’d consider it unprofessional at all.
I think you have green hair and live in a monkey cage in Cairo.

Let me know when you start caring.

We don’t need to speculate because there was a court case about the incident. That’s what the article was about and it referred to court documents about what was established to have happened and the legal rights and wrongs of the outcome. There is absolutely zero justification in talking about her indoctrinating kids at all.
The article doesn't mention any of the details you're claiming to know. The only link to related material is a link to a KTVT article that also doesn't contain any of these details. It links to an earlier CBS article that doesn't contain these details. Interestingly, this third article includes the MISD's response to the lawsuit:

The Mansfield Independent School District categorically denies the allegations in the lawsuit filed today by Stacy Bailey. Once facts are fully known and parties deposed, we are confident this lawsuit will not warrant merit.

Mrs. Bailey has has taught with Mansfield ISD for a decade. During her tenure with the district, there has never been an issue with her open sexual preferences until this year. That’s when her actions in the classroom changed, which prompted her students to voice concerns to their parents.​

I'm evidently missing something, hence could you post the source for your claim? My thanks in advance.
 
Yeah, there's definitely no intent to insult, with your constant need to call us deviants. :roll:

I read your response to his post and it made me think.

That basically he's saying he wants to offend and threaten people until the point where they don't speak about certain things in public but no offense.

This is the kind of hypocrisy these people are known for.

If you think about it that's kind of funny because what he's doing is shooting himself in the foot. This is why they lost. You can't trust them when they say no offense I'm just lying to themselves.

You should laugh if this kind of crap point out that she like you did bravo I wish I had your abilities when I was your age.

But something that I've been thinking about a lot lately is younger generations walking away from the church, and when I mention that to him he said oh and there's a crisis they'll come back no they won't because it's not important to them.

The reason why Church isn't important to the younger generation why is there a mass Exodus that's what it is, is because these people were so busy showing the world how righteous they are I forgot to make this matter to the younger generation. And the funniest part about it is they blame you for their failings.

Don't worry the war is being waged it's been won. I grew up in the 90s and things are extremely different now. I remember in the 90s homosexuality was kind of edgy in breaking edge people we're the ones that really you like accepted it nowadays kids between 14 and 22 they do not care at all if people are gay. Those are the hearts and minds good place the victory within our firm firm grasp.

That mean said never stop pointing and laughing however don't worry about the future it's already ours.

It's kind of like the church thing they didn't care enough to instill their views in the generations preceding them. Seems a very common thing is that I'm seeing a lot with the older crowd.
 
None of which are necessary for learning, and none of which kids should have to endure if the exposition normalizes immoral behaviour--intentionally or not.


I think you have green hair and live in a monkey cage in Cairo.

Let me know when you start caring.


The article doesn't mention any of the details you're claiming to know. The only link to related material is a link to a KTVT article that also doesn't contain any of these details. It links to an earlier CBS article that doesn't contain these details. Interestingly, this third article includes the MISD's response to the lawsuit:

The Mansfield Independent School District categorically denies the allegations in the lawsuit filed today by Stacy Bailey. Once facts are fully known and parties deposed, we are confident this lawsuit will not warrant merit.

Mrs. Bailey has has taught with Mansfield ISD for a decade. During her tenure with the district, there has never been an issue with her open sexual preferences until this year. That’s when her actions in the classroom changed, which prompted her students to voice concerns to their parents.​

I'm evidently missing something, hence could you post the source for your claim? My thanks in advance.

I don't know why people are on such a warpath about this. Everytime you freak out over inocuos nonsense you hurt your cause.

It's like the cake fiasco in Oregon that didn't help gay people.

This fiasco makes this complaining parent sing to be a social justice warrior.

If you don't think people should talk about certain things and school and they're talking about them convince some other parents in the school district to talk about pik interest in it for crying out loud. Just one bonkers little guy screeching about homosexual indoctrination makes him seem like the village idiot.
 
The reason why Church isn't important to the younger generation why is there a mass Exodus that's what it is, is because these people were so busy showing the world how righteous they are I forgot to make this matter to the younger generation. And the funniest part about it is they blame you for their failings.

Are you saying only younger people are leaving the faith, or isn't that going on across many demographics? And I assume you are talking about Christianity. But I wonder what your reference point actually is, did you grow up in a Church, or are you just making an assumption?

I would agree with you about the rate of growth of Christianity in the United States, Canada, and western Europe. But that is more of a reflection of lower birth rates among Western cultures-- especially those originating from Europe. Because of you look at Africa, Latin American, and Asia, the rate of Christianity is growing in those areas.

Don't worry the war is being waged it's been won. I grew up in the 90s and things are extremely different now. I remember in the 90s homosexuality was kind of edgy in breaking edge people we're the ones that really you like accepted it nowadays kids between 14 and 22 they do not care at all if people are gay. Those are the hearts and minds good place the victory within our firm firm grasp.

So then yes-- indoctrination? Is homosexuality different today than it was 60 years or 1000 years ago? Does it serve some new biological preeminence over heterosexuality that is pushing society and culture forward?



It's kind of like the church thing they didn't care enough to instill their views in the generations preceding them. Seems a very common thing is that I'm seeing a lot with the older crowd.

I don't make a theological argument about homosexuality being less than preferred to heterosexuality. But if I did there are plenty of indications in the Christian texts to support that argument too. But it is a waste of time to use theology to answer what nature has already concluded. And the reason is nobody has to agree with theology-- that exists in an arena known as "faith". Nature on the hand is measurable and observable. Where is homosexuality in nature vastly superior to heterosexuality?
 
Are you saying only younger people are leaving the faith, or isn't that going on across many demographics? And I assume you are talking about Christianity. But I wonder what your reference point actually is, did you grow up in a Church, or are you just making an assumption?
I don't think Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, it any other Religion has a church. There only other "religion" that does is the church if Scientology. Did you think that was what I was talking about?

I grew up in a church, I was devoted too. Until I learned it was hypocritical. I was hurt for a while over that.
I would agree with you about the rate of growth of Christianity in the United States, Canada, and western Europe. But that is more of a reflection of lower birth rates among Western cultures-- especially those originating from Europe.
I was talking about strictly American people walking away. 59% of my generation born in the church has walked away. I don't mean 59% of the generation good grow up in a church or had parents that weren't too into church. I mean 59% of people in my generation that attended church stopped.

I wonder if it will increase with gen z
Because of you look at Africa, Latin American, and Asia, the rate of Christianity is growing in those areas.
The West is the leader of the world. Where the West goes the rest of the world will follow except for maybe the backward theocracies that exist, such as Uganda or Afghanistan.


So then yes-- indoctrination?
I guess that's really all a matter of opinion. I would say the Christian church indoctrinates people into believing that it's wrong and now that that indoctrination has ceased to work on most of the people we're seeing the results.

what if you believe there is some sort of conspiracy of getting people to try in indoctrinate kids into their accepting homosexuality then, I guess you're free to believe that.

Is homosexuality different today than it was 60 years or 1000 years ago? Does it serve some new biological preeminence over heterosexuality that is pushing society and culture forward?
you shouldn't feel so threatened. Nobody's trying to replace you.

It's just we evolved out of more backward beliefs are really based on myth.




I don't make a theological argument about homosexuality being less than preferred to heterosexuality.
that's an oxymoron. You can't say you're making a theological argument well at the same time applying intelligence and discernment to nature which is a phenomenon that possesses neither.
But if I did there are plenty of indications in the Christian texts to support that argument too.
yeah people in the developing world see Christianity is a little backward. Promoting beliefs that have no reason and have no use in society is kind of waste.
But it is a waste of time to use theology to answer what nature has already concluded.
You are making a theological argument you just calling God nature. You claim that nature decides, or prefers, or concludes. You're saying nature is an intelligent designer.

It's not, it is the phenomenon of the physical world.


And the reason is nobody has to agree with theology-- that exists in an arena known as "faith".
the idea of nature preferring or deciding things is based on faith.
Nature on the hand is measurable and observable. Where is homosexuality in nature vastly superior to heterosexuality?
oh I'm sorry you must be mistaking me for someone else, I never said either one was Superior.
 
Last edited:
None of which are necessary for learning, and none of which kids should have to endure if the exposition normalizes immoral behaviour--intentionally or not.

Morality is subjective. Some kids are taught that it is immoral to be in an interracial relationship, so if a student taught this knows their white male teacher is going to marry or married to the black female teacher down the hall, to them, such a relationship can be seen as "normalizing immoral behavior--intentionally or not". Other kids are taught that interfaith relationships are immoral or being of different religions is immoral (some Southern Baptists teach their kids that being Catholic is immoral). So learning these things about any of their teachers could be considered normalizing immoral behaviors. But all are allowed and will not result in disciplinary action outside of doing more than just discussing them in a way that says "it is okay/legal to do this".

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
I am to busy surfing, working and having fun. You think more about plotting than I do...
My point was to establish that you were just trolling. The problem is that the "gay agenda" trope and accusations of indoctrinating (and by association abusing) children is incessant and dangerous. It isn't something to play around with.
 
So learning these things about any of their teachers could be considered normalizing immoral behaviors. But all are allowed and will not result in disciplinary action outside of doing more than just discussing them in a way that says "it is okay/legal to do this".
Just so long as you understand that kids being exposed to state actors with "open sexual preferences" (as the MISD puts it) isn't acceptable. The ideal solution would be the social/professional divide I benefited from during my schooling. But if this isn't tenable in the contemporary "share 'n care" buddy teacher climate, there's always private school and homeschooling.

Admittedly, if the infraction was just one photo and a passing mention of a "wife" as @HonestJoe contends, I'd let it slide.
 
Just so long as you understand that kids being exposed to state actors with "open sexual preferences" (as the MISD puts it) isn't acceptable. The ideal solution would be the social/professional divide I benefited from during my schooling. But if this isn't tenable in the contemporary "share 'n care" buddy teacher climate, there's always private school and homeschooling.

Admittedly, if the infraction was just one photo and a passing mention of a "wife" as @HonestJoe contends, I'd let it slide.
Oh no, it is acceptable because having an opposite sex husband or wife, girlfriend or boyfriend is still an "open sexual preference".

The ideal solution is for you and others with your opinion to recognize that individual rights trump your beliefs, just as it does those who believe interracial marriage or interfaith marriages are wrong. Too bad.

It is also noted how you conveniently left off the comparisons, not being willing to accept that those beliefs are just as valid or not as opinions as yours.

And learning about a teachers family helps children far more than trying to shield them from life because their parents have bigoted views.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
The article doesn't mention any of the details you're claiming to know.
If the wild speculations you invented had actually happened though, the complaint and subsequent reports would have very much mentioned them. The actual sequence of events is fairly clearly and constantly described in all the articles; she showed a picture of her wit her fiance and referred to "her future wife". There is absolutely nothing specific in any of the other accusations about her behaviour. My point remains that your speculation remains unnecessary and unjustified.

The Mansfield Independent School District categorically denies the allegations in the lawsuit filed today by Stacy Bailey. Once facts are fully known and parties deposed, we are confident this lawsuit will not warrant merit.
That's what they said at the start of the process (probably on their lawyers advice - whether they believed it is a different matter). They were clearly mistaken given that a judge ruled that the teacher did have a valid case on grounds of sexual orientation discrimination and the district chose to settle. If they case had no[/n] merit, it wouldn't have even gotten that far.

2 Time Teacher Of The Year, Stacy Bailey Settles Sexual Orientation Lawsuit With Mansfield ISD – CBS Dallas / Fort Worth
 
Just so long as you understand that kids being exposed to state actors with "open sexual preferences" (as the MISD puts it) isn't acceptable. The ideal solution would be the social/professional divide I benefited from during my schooling. But if this isn't tenable in the contemporary "share 'n care" buddy teacher climate, there's always private school and homeschooling.

Admittedly, if the infraction was just one photo and a passing mention of a "wife" as @HonestJoe contends, I'd let it slide.

Yeah I doubt teachers that taught you never spoke a word about themselves. The administration would need to be like a Gestapo, and they'd like have quite a lot of turnover.
 
Oh no, it is acceptable... The ideal solution is for...
We'll have to agree to disagree.

As long as the options to homeschool or attend private schools with tighter ethical codes are available, I can hold my peace. It's just unfortunate that those options aren't available to so many families.

If the wild speculations you invented had actually happened though, the complaint and subsequent reports would have very much mentioned them. The actual sequence of events is fairly clearly and constantly described in all the articles; she showed a picture of her wit her fiance and referred to "her future wife". There is absolutely nothing specific in any of the other accusations about her behaviour. My point remains that your speculation remains unnecessary and unjustified.

That's what they said at the start of the process (probably on their lawyers advice - whether they believed it is a different matter). They were clearly mistaken given that a judge ruled that the teacher did have a valid case on grounds of sexual orientation discrimination and the district chose to settle. If they case had no[/n] merit, it wouldn't have even gotten that far.

That's a lot of words for "I have no source for my claim."

Regarding your rationale, the article itself states (ibid.), "Federal Judge Sam Lindsay ruled that the Constitution clearly protected Bailey’s right to be free from sexual orientation discrimination". This could easily mean the judge threw the case out on the basis that chatting with the class at length about one's fiancee (including one's same-sex partner) is perfectly acceptable in American public schools.

If the anecdotes in this thread are to be believed, teachers have openly invited their fiances into classrooms to show them off. If that kind of behaviour is acceptable, I can't imagine a judge would have a problem with a discussion about one's same-sex partner and upcoming wedding. Kids have a lot of questions.

Yeah I doubt teachers that taught you never spoke a word about themselves. The administration would need to be like a Gestapo, and they'd like have quite a lot of turnover.
The system worked fine. The teachers were consummate professionals and I got a top-notch education.

You Yankees ought to give it a try. Maybe then your public schools wouldn't be ranked fourth-to-last in math literacy and dead last in digital technology literacy in the OECD. :shrug:
 
That's a lot of words for "I have no source for my claim."
I do have sources for my claims, all I’m claiming is what is actually written in the articles and the fact that there is no justification for the wild speculation you’re promoting on the basis there is absolutely nothing in any of the articles that even hint that he teacher did anything of the sort. I’m working on the basis that what was reported is largely accurate and honest. You’re working on the assumption that we’re being lied to in very a specific way.

If the anecdotes in this thread are to be believed…
There are anecdotes about people being discriminated by their employers simply because they’re gay and then their employers lying in court to try to get away with it. If speculation based on anecdotes is legitimate, why aren’t you basing yours on those?
 
I’m working on the basis that what was reported is largely accurate and honest. You’re working on the assumption that we’re being lied to in very a specific way.
You're working on the basis that what was reported was accurate, honest, and complete.

I treat every news article I read--whether from a mainstream source or not--as incomplete, for very good reason.

But I'll tell you what: rather than us speculating over what is or isn't complete, I'll look up the record of the case later this week (time permitting, and assuming it's accessible online). I'm genuinely curious as to the specifics.
 
You're working on the basis that what was reported was accurate, honest, and complete.

I treat every news article I read--whether from a mainstream source or not--as incomplete, for very good reason.

But I'll tell you what: rather than us speculating over what is or isn't complete, I'll look up the record of the case later this week (time permitting, and assuming it's accessible online). I'm genuinely curious as to the specifics.
You didn't just assume it was incomplete though, you assumed it was incomplete in a specific direction. You didn't even consider speculating that the behaviour of the school was worse than reported. It was only the presumptive speculation I was questioning. I'm not accepting everything written as unquestionable truth but I'm not assuming anything, positive or negative, that isn't in evidence.
 
My point was to establish that you were just trolling. The problem is that the "gay agenda" trope and accusations of indoctrinating (and by association abusing) children is incessant and dangerous. It isn't something to play around with.

Depends... sometimes doing so wakes people up or lightens the mood about serious issues.

Abusers don't need an excuse to be abusive...
 
I grew up in a church, I was devoted too. Until I learned it was hypocritical. I was hurt for a while over that.


So you gave it up because the people were hypocritical, or because you determined that the theology (the application of 'divine' revelation found in the texts) was hypocritical or wrong? Sounds more like a you problem to me than a problem with the texts. Or is it that it WAS the texts and what is said about homosexuality that you had a problem with and not the people?

I was talking about strictly American people walking away. 59% of my generation born in the church has walked away. I don't mean 59% of the generation good grow up in a church or had parents that weren't too into church. I mean 59% of people in my generation that attended church stopped.

This my issue with young people and you are still very young compared to me. Your generation is far to focused on the very limited time span and what you seem to think YOU experience. Apostasy in the Christian faith has occurred many times in great degrees over thousands of years.

I wonder if it will increase with gen z
The West is the leader of the world. Where the West goes the rest of the world will follow except for maybe the backward theocracies that exist, such as Uganda or Afghanistan.

You think too much of the west and our very limited time at the top of the pyramid. The Roman empire lasted for 1000 years, we have only been a little more than 200 years.


I guess that's really all a matter of opinion. I would say the Christian church indoctrinates people into believing that it's wrong and now that that indoctrination has ceased to work on most of the people we're seeing the results.

The texts say what they say. Homosexuality is clearly described as unnatural and wrong in the Christian texts. So then sure, either believe it or reject it. But there is no compatibility in my view unless the interpretation of the texts are redefined to make homosexuality fit where it doesn't.

what if you believe there is some sort of conspiracy of getting people to try in indoctrinate kids into their accepting homosexuality then, I guess you're free to believe that.

Good, let's talk about it in terms other than theological. You keep assuming that is where this all comes from, that it is just uptight Christians who are complaining. So here is how the indoctrination works: In the interest of political correctness and virtue signaling many teachers are telling kids that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality in nature. Not talking about civil rights... they are suggesting that homosexuality is exactly as natural and preferable in nature to heterosexuality.

So when someone like me says, "Do what you prefer, I honor your liberty of choice, but don't demand from me agreement that it is the same... that bothers them. It bothers them because in the back of their minds there is that tiny grain of doubt which convinces them they are not the same (in nature).

you shouldn't feel so threatened. Nobody's trying to replace you

I'm not threatened at all. I'm only speaking about the reality. That homosexuality is in nature an aberration.

It's just we evolved out of more backward beliefs are really based on myth.

This isn't the world is flat thing. Homosexuality is less than preferred by nature. It is a biological reality.


that's an oxymoron. You can't say you're making a theological argument well at the same time applying intelligence and discernment to nature which is a phenomenon that possesses neither.
yeah people in the developing world see Christianity is a little backward. Promoting beliefs that have no reason and have no use in society is kind of waste.
You are making a theological argument you just calling God nature. You claim that nature decides, or prefers, or concludes. You're saying nature is an intelligent designer.

Are you saying nature does not take a course that has a purpose? Do you believe that nature is only randomness and chaos?

I'm not making a theological argument. People can believe nature to be by design, or by evolution--- doesn't matter to me. But nature figures stuff out for the purpose of survival, it always does. And that is my point about comparing homosexuality to heterosexuality. One is less than, and the other greater than--- in nature.

It's not, it is the phenomenon of the physical world.

So then just random chaos?


the idea of nature preferring or deciding things is based on faith.

Actually it is based on science. Observing the way things work, or how they don't work.
 
The system worked fine. The teachers were consummate professionals and I got a top-notch education.
I just don't believe you that this system ever existed.
You Yankees ought to give it a try. Maybe then your public schools wouldn't be ranked fourth-to-last in math literacy and dead last in digital technology literacy in the OECD. :shrug:
I'm not a Yankee I'm from Texas
 
So you gave it up because the people were hypocritical, or because you determined that the theology (the application of 'divine' revelation found in the texts) was hypocritical or wrong? Sounds more like a you problem to me than a problem with the texts. Or is it that it WAS the texts and what is said about homosexuality that you had a problem with and not the people?
no because the organization was hypocritical. In one breath they say it's wrong to be homosexual well at the same time covering up their officials molesting children. They say they're open to everyone and everyone is welcome except the people they don't like.



This my issue with young people and you are still very young compared to me. Your generation is far to focused on the very limited time span and what you seem to think YOU experience. Apostasy in the Christian faith has occurred many times in great degrees over thousands of years.



You think too much of the west and our very limited time at the top of the pyramid. The Roman empire lasted for 1000 years, we have only been a little more than 200 years.
200 years? So Western culture began in 1820?



The texts say what they say. Homosexuality is clearly described as unnatural and wrong in the Christian texts. So then sure, either believe it or reject it. But there is no compatibility in my view unless the interpretation of the texts are redefined to make homosexuality fit where it doesn't.
sorry I don't see anywhere in the text where it says we should alienate these people. In fact I can find places where it says you shouldn't. But those parts of the Bible aren't as important.

Hypocrisy.


Good, let's talk about it in terms other than theological. You keep assuming that is where this all comes from, that it is just uptight Christians who are complaining. So here is how the indoctrination works: In the interest of political correctness and virtue signaling many teachers are telling kids that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality in nature. Not talking about civil rights... they are suggesting that homosexuality is exactly as natural and preferable in nature to heterosexuality.

So when someone like me says, "Do what you prefer, I honor your liberty of choice, but don't demand from me agreement that it is the same... that bothers them. It bothers them because in the back of their minds there is that tiny grain of doubt which convinces them they are not the same (in nature).
how do you know what's in people's minds? A you a psychic?


I'm not threatened at all. I'm only speaking about the reality. That homosexuality is in nature an aberration.



This isn't the world is flat thing. Homosexuality is less than preferred by nature. It is a biological reality.




Are you saying nature does not take a course that has a purpose? Do you believe that nature is only randomness and chaos?

I'm not making a theological argument. People can believe nature to be by design, or by evolution--- doesn't matter to me. But nature figures stuff out for the purpose of survival, it always does. And that is my point about comparing homosexuality to heterosexuality. One is less than, and the other greater than--- in nature.



So then just random chaos?





Aberration means deviation from normal. You have to first define normal to say something is an aberration. If normal was the neanderthal, Cro-Magnon man was an aberration. Aberrations are unnatural in your mind then reality isn't compatible with your definition of nature. Every time a new life is conceived the DNA of that new life is unique and divergent. Without divergence we would all be clones or more likely stromatolites.

When you say nature prefers or decides you're assigning nature intelligence. so you're basically making nature into a God because you can't clean out at central nervous system, it would have to be an ethereal deity. So yes that is theological.

So you believe nature is intelligent design which is fine you can believe whatever you want. But there's no factual basis for that so of course that is theological.

also I said that nature is a phenomenon not that it's chaos or randomness that's not what the phenomenon means. A phenomenon is a fact or a situation you can observe but you can't explain. That's why you and so many people before you have assigned nature some sort of them godlike persona.

Actually it is based on science. Observing the way things work, or how they don't work.
I'm sorry where did you study science?

I find it extremely doubtful that it's part of the science to believe nature has some sort of ethereal intelligence and power. That is a religious belief.
 
Back
Top Bottom