Different churches including those accepting of homosexuality. Only idiots believe that homosexuality causes any sort of natural disasters.People leaving the churches is not an inevitability
A severe enough and traumatic enough national event and people will be flocking back to churches.
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.
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.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.
I think you have green hair and live in a monkey cage in Cairo.I don’t believe you. I don’t think you’d consider it unprofessional 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: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.
Yeah, there's definitely no intent to insult, with your constant need to call us deviants. :roll:
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:
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.
Can you explain this?
Skittles? :thinking
Is it just because of the rainbow marketing/advertising thing?
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.
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 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?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 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 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.
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.Because of you look at Africa, Latin American, and Asia, the rate of Christianity is growing in those areas.
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.So then yes-- indoctrination?
you shouldn't feel so threatened. Nobody's trying to replace you.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?
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.I don't make a theological argument about homosexuality being less than preferred to heterosexuality.
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 if I did there are plenty of indications in the Christian texts to support that argument too.
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.But it is a waste of time to use theology to answer what nature has already concluded.
the idea of nature preferring or deciding things is based on faith.And the reason is nobody has to agree with theology-- that exists in an arena known as "faith".
oh I'm sorry you must be mistaking me for someone else, I never said either one was Superior.Nature on the hand is measurable and observable. Where is homosexuality in nature vastly superior to heterosexuality?
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.
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.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.
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.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".
Oh no, it is acceptable because having an opposite sex husband or wife, girlfriend or boyfriend is still an "open sexual preference".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.
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 article doesn't mention any of the details you're claiming to know.
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.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.
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.
Can you explain this?
Skittles? :thinking
Is it just because of the rainbow marketing/advertising thing?
We'll have to agree to disagree.Oh no, it is acceptable... The ideal solution is for...
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.
The system worked fine. The teachers were consummate professionals and I got a top-notch education.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.
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.That's a lot of words for "I have no source for my claim."
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?If the anecdotes in this thread are to be believed…
You're working on the basis that what was reported was accurate, honest, and complete.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 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.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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's not, it is the phenomenon of the physical world.
the idea of nature preferring or deciding things is based on faith.
I just don't believe you that this system ever existed.The system worked fine. The teachers were consummate professionals and I got a top-notch education.
I'm not a Yankee I'm from TexasYou 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:
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.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?
200 years? So Western culture began in 1820?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.
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.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.
how do you know what's in people's minds? A you a psychic?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).
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?
I'm sorry where did you study science?Actually it is based on science. Observing the way things work, or how they don't work.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?