Alright—you know exactly what I mean by explaining things better without using quotation marks. The only thing that can be done when you use them is for the meaning to be inferred. I cannot know what you mean when they’re used as I cannot read your mind and your intentions may differ. Don’t be petty. 

Being straight is included in sexual orientation. I know that sexual orientation, gender dysphoria and gender identity are different things and I never claimed otherwise. The bill does NOT target those groups. It is an all encompassing bill that prohibits that kind of discussion in those classrooms from every view point. I only used it to prove my point that people can be easily manipulated into voting a certain way. And once again, the age at which it prohibits that conversation in the classroom is the key important note. 

I never claimed that intolerance means tolerance. Re-read my statement. 
I’m not going to give an example because I don’t think this conversation is going anywhere constructive and I would like to end it. I’d encourage you to think outside the box and think of an example for yourself.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I was quoting the bill, and pointing out that it covers more things than "sexual conduct".

This entire section is from the bill:

SEXUALLY-ORIENTED MATERIAL.—The term ‘‘sexually-oriented material’’ means any depiction, description, or simulation of sexual activity, any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of human genitals, or any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects

It absolutely does target those groups. 

It's literally written in black and white, regardless of what anyone claims. 

I was a conservative for most of my younger life. I continue to talk a lot with conservatives so I can continue to understand where they're coming from. 

"I never claimed that intolerance means tolerance. Re-read my statement."

I apologize. I was responding to when you said this:

"What you define as intolerant, others define as tolerant, and Vice versa."

simple don't have idiots vote

Really? Which supreme court judge said they would come after gay marriage? Who calls trans people groomers? Who thinks Muslims and Latinos and black people are subhuman? Who tries to make it harder for minorities to vote? Who overturned row v wade? 

Or dodon'let anti democratic buffoons run in elections. 

For that you need to overhaul the education system. But for that to happen you need a democratic government, we the people for all the people.

Typical catch 22.

The US isn't the oldest democracy. Switzerland exists. Plenty of older democracies that don't exist anymore too, but even if you're only counting continuing ones, the US still isn't the oldest.

As for how to improve it, simple, make it more democratic. Get rid of the electoral college stuff and just have a standard vote for the president. Whoever gets >50% of the votes is president, simple. No giving more weight to votes from some states than those in other states.

That itself would actually be anti-democratic though. Plus, who decides who's fit to run or not? You're just opening the system up for corruption and manipulation by allowing something like that.

No it won't.  Democracy must be protected from anti democratic action. Like a person running on the platform of ending future elections shouldn't be run. You can't let a monarchist run either or a fascist. It's not about fit to run, it's about those that seek to overturn democracy. If you don't,  your democracy won't survive. Just look at how orban did it, hoe bolsonaro wants to do it, how erdogan did it and how modhi is doing it. You are dooming your democracies if you let it happen. And that's what's happening in the US.  Anti democratic people are running and destroying US democracy.

It's the same thing as allowing intolerant people for tolerances sake. You think being tolerant of nazi ideology will end well? Systems can't survive absolutism and as many have said "tolerance requires us to be intolerant towards intolerance". As many Americans have learned, many systems require the goodwill of people in power to do their job. Systems cannot be removed from the people in them. Democracy won't function if Anti democratic forces are allowed to destroy it from within.  You can't have freedom without restricting some freedoms from some people. 

What's the point in being heard if they don't, or purposely won't, understand?
And then what?