Gay Teacher in Texas Wins Court Fight

[CLAX1911]

He may have done what he did to survive, and then on the other end of that some of the other men were having sex with him by choice-- because there were no female options. What I said about male prison sex and what you said are not incompatible.

well what you're describing is men who are bisexual they aren't changing their sexual orientation because they don't need to.

The young man you speak of may have even been raped.

Look up "MSM"--- a classification of sexual behavior by the CDC to describe men who have sex with other men who are not necessarily being classifies as gays or bisexuals.

yeah lots of people lie about their sexual orientation.

Wrong again (see above). Look up 'MSM'. "Attraction" does is not divest itself from choice.

S
What you're speaking about above is classifications being inadequate. You pointed out bisexual men aren't classified as bisexual men. Yes again lots of people lie about their sexual proclivities I would say most people do.

 

[Eriech]

A clasmate from my daughter's kindergarten class later in life married their kindergarten teacher. Beautiful feature story made all the local papers, the two were artificially inseminated at the same time so they could be pregnant together and the babys could grow up together. It was beautiful until it wasn't. Bitter divorce and custody battle. Anyway. probably a totally unrelated post to the op except for the question; Did the teacher say or do anything to promote same sex relationships or was it a coincidence that a kindergarten teacher later marries a former student?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Dragonfly]

Plenty of men in prison CHOOSE to change their orientation, and then when released from prison change back. So there's that.

So there's that???
Really?

A comment like yours is basic ignorance times 1000. So yeah, there is THAT.

 

[CLAX1911]

A clasmate from my daughter's kindergarten class later in life married their kindergarten teacher. Beautiful feature story made all the local papers, the two were artificially inseminated at the same time so they could be pregnant together and the babys could grow up together. It was beautiful until it wasn't. Bitter divorce and custody battle. Anyway. probably a totally unrelated post to the op except for the question; Did the teacher say or do anything to promote same sex relationships or was it a coincidence that a kindergarten teacher later marries a former student?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Umm... Where did you hear that she married a former kindergarten student?

No, there is no evidence that she did anything to promote a same sex relationship.

 

[CLAX1911]

So there's that???
Really?

A comment like yours is basic ignorance times 1000. So yeah, there is THAT.

It basically amounts to some men are bisexual but don't identify themselves that way.

 

[Court Jester]

It died [sic] mean they admitted they were wrong, especially if they reinstate the teacher. If they can be made to be wrong then they're wrong.

Again, a settlement does not necessarily mean they are admitting they are wrong. It may mean they don't think they can win in court, or the cost to fight it may be more than the cost of settling.

if your kids are special little snowflakes that can't exist in reality then you need to take them out of school you have the problem. Our society doesn't teach same-sex marriage is wrong.

It may be more accepted than past decades, but the majority of people and societies around the world still view homosexual marriage as less than acceptable, less than natural, less than desired for their societies.

If you want to teach that feel free. If you can't handle other people teaching your kids then teach them yourself. Find a private school or a private tutor.

OR be vocal and willing to stand up and REJECT the indoctrination, and especially teach your children to recognize the indoctrination and be willing to tell the teacher or anyone else they don't agree or accept their point of view.

Because as you indicate, everyone entitled to have their own ability to judge for themselves. And the last thing today's public schools want are students who will question the PC culture and the indoctrination. Because those student are dangerous to the agenda, aren't they?

When my children were in elementary school I did sent them to a private school. But by the time they were in high school my wife and I wanted them in public schools. Not only to stand on their own on the solid foundations already built, but to be voices and examples against the current modern prevailing culture that wants to turn nature and reality upside down.

I don't care for sjw parents. This complaining parent is an sjw snowflake. Nobody's forcing anything on them he chose to enroll his kids in a public school. Schools should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Who owns public schools other than ALL OF US. His opinions are just as valid as anyone else's. He pays taxes too. If the teacher doesn't like that--- too bad. If she is bothered by the push back, then who is the real snowflake?

I love it when people question authority. I love it when students rattle a teacher's cage. Especially one that is used to indoctrinating others without dissent.

 

[CLAX1911]

Again, a settlement does not necessarily mean they are admitting they are wrong. It may mean they don't think they can win in court, or the cost to fight it may be more than the cost of settling.

A settlement certainly doesn't mean they were right.

It may be more accepted than past decades, but the majority of people and societies around the world still view homosexual marriage as less than acceptable, less than natural, less than desired for their societies.

you don't have to accept anything. In that same breath this teacher doesn't have to accept the school district's actions.

Why should gay people be treated as second-class citizens because people have ideas about nature?

OR be vocal and willing to stand up and REJECT the indoctrination, and especially teach your children to recognize the indoctrination and be willing to tell the teacher or anyone else they don't agree or accept their point of view.

that's a bit dramatic. The teacher showing a picture of her fiance is not indoctrination.

If you think it is you're overreacting. further if you take your kids to a public school and ask the public school to teach them you are saying to the public school please indoctrinate my children. he can put his kids into private school he can teach them himself.

Because as you indicate, everyone entitled to have their own ability to judge for themselves. And the last thing today's public schools want are students who will question the PC culture and the indoctrination. Because those student are dangerous to the agenda, aren't they?

fighting PC culture with opposite but equal PC culture is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

When my children were in elementary school I did sent them to a private school. But by the time they were in high school my wife and I wanted them in public schools. Not only to stand on their own on the solid foundations already built, but to be voices and examples against the current modern prevailing culture that wants to turn nature and reality upside down.

Good for you.

Who owns public schools other than ALL OF US. His opinions are just as valid as anyone else's. He pays taxes too. If the teacher doesn't like that--- too bad. If she is bothered by the push back, then who is the real snowflake?

sure it is and they heard his opinion and his actions cost the school district 100k so his opinion cost himself and everyone else that pays taxes so even if he won he lost.

In this case I would say it is Paul holding that is the snowflake he can't have his precious little kids taught by some degenerate homo. They make safe spaces for all the little snowflakes it must be protected from everyone else's opinion that they can't tolerate. Private school or homeschool.

I love it when people question authority. I love it when students rattle a teacher's cage. Especially one that is used to indoctrinating others without dissent.

Except of course when it's a parent indoctrinating a child with religious gobbledygook, or the idea that being homosexual is somehow unnatural. I'm willing to bet you 100% support that PC agenda.

The choice is between the gay agenda and the anti-gay agenda is it choice between a turd sandwich on white bread or a turd sandwich on rye.

 

[Jason Warfield]

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.

Yeah, either your school was weird, or most likely, this is BS. Almost 40 years ago in fourth grade teacher invited us kids in her class to her wedding. About 4 years after that, I briefly went to a private Christian school and generally speaking, the spouses were encouraged to help at the school, in essence we knew who they were.

So...this has been going on for decades...in and out of private and public schools. I think that you are just trying to say you don't want to see gay or lesbian spouses or partners because it offends you and seem like a bigot.

 

[Court Jester]

A settlement certainly doesn't mean they were right.

Also doesn't meant they were wrong. Just means the settled. You are aware that in a civil case a settlement is different th

you don't have to accept anything. In that same breath this teacher doesn't have to accept the school district's actions.

No, and seems like she didn't give up. In the end didn't she get her job back?

Why should gay people be treated as second-class citizens because people have ideas about nature?

I don't believe they should be treated as second class citizens either. But they (homosexuals) are NOT equal in nature, they can't be. If everyone was homosexual there would be no species, so they are clearly as 'less than' situation in nature. Not in civil society, but in nature, yes--- the are not as preferred in nature.

that's a bit dramatic. The teacher showing a picture of her fiance is not indoctrination.

That is debatable. But she did include her personal comments---so yeah, she was supporting her personal viewpoint. So unless she was teaching a class in civics/government and the subject was about marriage laws--- she was off topic AND supporting an agenda.

If you think it is you're overreacting. further if you take your kids to a public school and ask the public school to teach them you are saying to the public school please indoctrinate my children.

No I'm not. I'd be fine if the school wants to talk about marriage laws and then INCLUDE balance by allowing someone to offer a different view on the social aspects of allowing for same sex marriage---then I'm fine with that given the students are age appropriate for that discussion. But this teacher wants to claim homosexual unions are equal to heterosexual unions---and that is indoctrination. Are they legal? Yes. Are they naturally equal to heterosexual unions--no, I don't think they are.

Except of course when it's a parent indoctrinating a child with religious gobbledygook, or the idea that being homosexual is somehow unnatural.

Religion has no place in a public school education. Homosexual unions can be shown to be unequal to heterosexual unions just based on a elementary class in biology. Unless homosexual begin competing with heterosexuals in affecting the gene pool of the species, they will always be less than natural, less than efficient, less than preferred BY NATURE.

The choice is between the gay agenda and the anti-gay agenda is it choice between a turd sandwich on white bread or a turd sandwich on rye.

I don't think there is an anti-gay agenda. But there is an agenda of truth when it comes to teaching about nature, and the choices NATURE makes.

 

[CLAX1911]

Also doesn't meant they were wrong. Just means the settled. You are aware that in a civil case a settlement is different th




No, and seems like she didn't give up. In the end didn't she get her job back?



I don't believe they should be treated as second class citizens either. But they (homosexuals) are NOT equal in nature, they can't be. If everyone was homosexual there would be no species, so they are clearly as 'less than' situation in nature. Not in civil society, but in nature, yes--- the are not as preferred in nature.




That is debatable. But she did include her personal comments---so yeah, she was supporting her personal viewpoint. So unless she was teaching a class in civics/government and the subject was about marriage laws--- she was off topic AND supporting an agenda.



No I'm not. I'd be fine if the school wants to talk about marriage laws and then INCLUDE balance by allowing someone to offer a different view on the social aspects of allowing for same sex marriage---then I'm fine with that given the students are age appropriate for that discussion. But this teacher wants to claim homosexual unions are equal to heterosexual unions---and that is indoctrination. Are they legal? Yes. Are they naturally equal to heterosexual unions--no, I don't think they are.




Religion has no place in a public school education. Homosexual unions can be shown to be unequal to heterosexual unions just based on a elementary class in biology. Unless homosexual begin competing with heterosexuals in affecting the gene pool of the species, they will always be less than natural, less than efficient, less than preferred BY NATURE.



I don't think there is an anti-gay agenda. But there is an agenda of truth when it comes to teaching about nature, and the choices NATURE makes.

Okay gay people can procreate they're humans just like you and they do it just like you do. So if all the population was gay we would probably have less people it would probably be less abortions and less unwanted children. It would probably be fewer starving children.

Sounds like your nature was a conscious thing that made choices that would choose that.

And you saying there is no anti gay agenda is just like in lgbtq radical activist saying that there's no gay agenda. people say that because they want to promote the agenda.

What you said was truth is false. Nature doesn't make choices that isn't intelligent or sentient or living at all, it is a physical phenomenon of the universe. So when you tell people it makes choices that's propaganda and you're doing it so that they view gay people as lesser. it would make sense that someone promoting the anti-gay agenda would say that it doesn't exist. The mafia wants you to believe the mafia doesn't exist.

Also same-sex marriages are equal to any other marriage. Marriage is a civil proceeding. If you want to apply some mysticism and gobbledygook to it you can. But that doesn't matter anyone outside of whatever your religious or political view is. If you apply nature or mysticism or God's will or any of this other business you can't prove exists you are promoting an agenda.

 

[Dragonfly]

It basically amounts to some men are bisexual but don't identify themselves that way.

I wouldn't even go there.
When talking about prison, that's not even remotely relative to the discussion of gay/straight/bisexual.

 

[CLAX1911]

I wouldn't even go there.
When talking about prison, that's not even remotely relative to the discussion of gay/straight/bisexual.

Well he was talking about the men who will fully engage in sex with other men not for clout or commodities but the ones that do it for pleasure. These folks would clearly be bisexual or gay. Straight guys don't get pleasure out of having sex with men. If they did they wouldn't be straight.

 

[TheGoverness]

I don't believe they should be treated as second class citizens either. But they (homosexuals) are NOT equal in nature, they can't be. If everyone was homosexual there would be no species, so they are clearly as 'less than' situation in nature. Not in civil society, but in nature, yes--- the are not as preferred in nature.

The need to constantly point out that gay people cannot reproduce with each other (of course, ignoring all of the straight couples that cannot do the same, for a variety of reasons), is an attempt at superiority.

But this teacher wants to claim homosexual unions are equal to heterosexual unions---and that is indoctrination. Are they legal? Yes. Are they naturally equal to heterosexual unions--no, I don't think they are.

Marriage is a societal concept. It's not "natural" at all.

 

[Court Jester]

The need to constantly point out that gay people cannot reproduce with each other (of course, ignoring all of the straight couples that cannot do the same, for a variety of reasons), is an attempt at superiority.

No offense, but there is a superiority in NATURE when it comes to this. Homosexuality does not effectively replenish the gene pool the way heterosexuality does--- obviously.

Superiority in nature = YES
Superiority in civil laws/rights.... I never said that.

Marriage is a societal concept. It's not "natural" at all.

Yes, a societal concept which either supports the natural/biological functions of survival-- and what is best for the gene pool (species), or doesn't. And then beyond that it is a societal means to which a society functions in the best way. Because as we all understand, societies and cultures are in constant competition with each other.... as is also part of the way nature determines the fittest.

It ain't personal, it's NATURE.

 

[vegas giants]

No offense, but there is a superiority in NATURE when it comes to this. Homosexuality does not effectively replenish the gene pool the way heterosexuality does--- obviously.

Superiority in nature = YES
Superiority in civil laws/rights.... I never said that.




Yes, a societal concept which either supports the natural/biological functions of survival-- and what is best for the gene pool (species), or doesn't. And then beyond that it is a societal means to which a society functions in the best way. Because as we all understand, societies and cultures are in constant competition with each other.... as is also part of the way nature determines the fittest.

It ain't personal, it's NATURE.

Nature would be men rutting with as many females as possible.



It ain't personal.....its nature!

 

[Bodi]

Teacher of the year suspended for showing students a picture of her fiancee wins $100,000 settlement - CNN



I sure hope there's more to this story than this:



Come on Texas, I mean yeah, in the end you got it right, but how did it get there in the first place???

Again with the "gay agenda" crap? :roll:

The gay agenda is not a fairy tale ...

 

[vegas giants]

The gay agenda is not a fairy tale ...

It's not if you mean being sure to pick put fashionable clothes

 

[Court Jester]

Nature would be men rutting with as many females as possible.

That might be your first assumption but it is not... not even in a state of nature.

Yes, the male of the species would want to spread his genes in the higher numbers into the gene pool if he could. But the female of the species in nature is always the gatekeeper holding back for the BEST genes to enter the gene pool.

Observe how in a pack of wolves, lions, and other apex predators-- it will be the alpha males (and their associates) along with alpha females which establish the pecking order in reproduction. The weak males are run off if they try to mate.. or they must battle the alpha. If they win, or the alpha is old now and weak, then it all gets figured out that way. But the weak are not the ones contributing as much to the gene pool.

In human society (as it applies to nature) it could probably argued that homosexuality is weak and therefore not going to be available to improve the gene pool.

It ain't personal.....its nature!

Yep

 

[vegas giants]

That might be your first assumption but it is not... not even in a state of nature.

Yes, the male of the species would want to spread his genes in the higher numbers into the gene pool if he could. But the female of the species in nature is always the gatekeeper holding back for the BEST genes to enter the gene pool.

Observe how in a pack of wolves, lions, and other apex predators-- it will be the alpha males (and their associates) along with alpha females which establish the pecking order in reproduction. The weak males are run off if they try to mate.. or they must battle the alpha. If they win, or the alpha is old now and weak, then it all gets figured out that way. But the weak are not the ones contributing as much to the gene pool.

In human society (as it applies to nature) it could probably argued that homosexuality is weak and therefore not going to be available to improve the gene pool.




Yep

No. You are saying weak males must not be allowed to procreate. You are talking about weak heterosexual men. Are you saying that should be law?


It's not personal....its nature

 

[HonestJoe]

The gay agenda is not a fairy tale ...

1) Apologies
2) Minutes of last meeting
3) Some people just happen to be gay
4) AOB

 

[Court Jester]

No. You are saying weak males must not be allowed to procreate. You are talking about weak heterosexual men. Are you saying that should be law?

No, but clearly homosexual men and women aren't winning the gene pool contest are they?


What if 98% of humans were homosexual rather than the current 2%? How would that work out in nature?

 

[vegas giants]

No, but clearly homosexual men and women aren't winning the gene pool contest are they?


What if 98% of humans were homosexual rather than the current 2%? How would that work out in nature?

What if we only let the smartest and strongest males breed?


That would make a better society...right?


Would you support such a law?

 

[Court Jester]

What if we only let the smartest and strongest males breed?


That would make a better society...right?


Would you support such a law?

LOL!!!


Where did you hear me say I supported laws to discriminate against homosexuals? I never did. What I said was that in nature homosexual unions are less competitive and therefore less successful to the gene pool (the species) than heterosexual unions. Try to stay on point! I made no comment calling for taking away civil rights for anyone.

Now in terms of intelligence (IQ), it is clear that intelligence is factored in our DNA from our parents and in the gene pool.

But no, you can't legislate a better gene pool. Well, you could, be we should not do that. I wouldn't support it.

 

[Bodi]

That might be your first assumption but it is not... not even in a state of nature.

Yes, the male of the species would want to spread his genes in the higher numbers into the gene pool if he could. But the female of the species in nature is always the gatekeeper holding back for the BEST genes to enter the gene pool.

Observe how in a pack of wolves, lions, and other apex predators-- it will be the alpha males (and their associates) along with alpha females which establish the pecking order in reproduction. The weak males are run off if they try to mate.. or they must battle the alpha. If they win, or the alpha is old now and weak, then it all gets figured out that way. But the weak are not the ones contributing as much to the gene pool.

In human society (as it applies to nature) it could probably argued that homosexuality is weak and therefore not going to be available to improve the gene pool.




Yep

Humans have evolved past caring about procreating the best genes...

 

[vegas giants]

LOL!!!


Where did you hear me say I supported laws to discriminate against homosexuals? I never did. What I said was that in nature homosexual unions are less competitive and therefore less successful to the gene pool (the species) than heterosexual unions. Try to stay on point! I made no comment calling for taking away civil rights for anyone.

Now in terms of intelligence (IQ), it is clear that intelligence is factored in our DNA from our parents and in the gene pool.

But no, you can't legislate a better gene pool. Well, you could, be we should not do that. I wouldn't support it.

Then this entire conversation is moot. Who cares about nature? It is not relevant.


But face it....if nature was the law....a lot of us would not be breeders