TxAgPreacher said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

YOu would be hard pressed to find any medical procedure that has a 94% satisfaction rate.

---

They say that, and then they kill themselves.

Not objective. Killing yourself is

---

Where are you guys getting your information?

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/930195

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10027312/

Of the 23 studies that met the inclusion criteria, the majority indicated a reduction in suicidality following gender-affirming treatment;

Rongagin71 said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

We have the right to make Christian laws in our own country. Who are you to tell us otherwise?

---

To some degree, sure. And for the moment I have the right to oppose those laws and tell you why I think they are a bad idea.

---

Here is the crux of what has apparently been an ongoing debate between two very different groups on various TexAgs threads for years.
I was pleased that Kurt V said he is against transing children, even that small of a compromise is rare from what I've seen in this Christian vs Left debate.
I will respond by saying that "yeah, sometimes the Christians can be too controlling" - but that does not make them National Socialists.
As RFK Jr recently stated, Biden is more of a threat to democracy than Trump.

---

All good except I'd say not controlling enough apparently. We have allowed this radical transexual ideally experiment to be carried out to disastrous results.

We should now allow murderers to murder, rapists to rape, or butchers to butcher our mentally ill.

We get accused of being sexist, yet the proof is we liberalized, and now Women get extra rights.
We are accused of being racist, yet we let every single race in.
We are accused of being transphobic, yet look what we let them get away with.

We are far too tolerant with things we disagree with. We do not have to allow it, and that doesn't make us hateful. Basically the opposite is true of everything we are accused of being. We are too nice.

Macarthur said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

YOu would be hard pressed to find any medical procedure that has a 94% satisfaction rate.

---

They say that, and then they kill themselves.

Not objective. Killing yourself is

---

Where are you guys getting your information?

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/930195

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10027312/

Of the 23 studies that met the inclusion criteria, the majority indicated a reduction in suicidality following gender-affirming treatment;

---

Presumably these people have always existed right?

Why were they not offing themselves at these rates before this radical ideology came along that said "you can change your gender"

Where did you get the idea that you can "change your gender"?

Because we were even more "oppressive" back then. We had zero tolerance and yet no suicide epidemic?

The difference is nobody has a problem of normal couples. It's the only way to keep civilization alive.

How can we have public schools if we don't agree on what is being thought in the schools. So things that everyone agrees should be taught, and what we don't agree on should be taught at home. You don't have the right to push it on children, against the wishes of the community.

This is really a local issue, and communities should be allowed to make those choices. That isn't hypocritical at all. We have the right to push our morals if the community at large agrees.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Thats not an answer, WEASEL!

There are some civil people on this thread, but I think I'm done with the Preacherman.

---

You called me nazi, and you are offended by weasel, when your subjectivity causes you to weasel on everything?

OK bro. Cry more. You call me one of the worst things you can call, and then you get a gee wiz, extremely tame, characterization of your actions that are accurate, and you cry about it? Call me a weasel for avoiding a question, and I'll answer it. I don't care.

Don't pretend I'm not civil, when you are so hypocritical here its not even funny. So dishonest. So disgusting.

I'm done. You guys are so dishonest.

Here is your reminder of what they are pushing:

Sapper Redux said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I'm serious. I would like for you tell me what you think I'm supposed to blame LGBTQ persons for.

---

Well I would start by pushing damaging behavior even on children.

How about public lewd behavior at parades, etc?

You are blind if you can not see the damage caused by promoting this lifestyle.

---

The concern I have about your first sentence is the word 'damaging'. If your definition of damaging includes anything not consistent with Christianity, then a Hindu raising their child in their faith is 'pushing damaging behavior' on children. I'm not going to condemn someone for believing as they do. That is your job apparently.

Are there LGBTQ persons that have harmed children. Absolutely. And I don't make excuses for their behavior. I also don't apply blanket condemnation of all people for the transgressions of some. Like, I don't think you owe an apology for all the kids raped by priests. Being also a Christian doesn't make you personally responsible for the actions of every Christian.

I'm not advocating for public lewd behavior. I also don't condemn all LGBTQ persons for 'crossing of the line' at parades. Similarly, I don't condemn Christianity for what goes on at Mardi Gras?

And while we are on the topic of lewd behavior. There are two billboards I drive by on my way into work with women in bikinis - one for some alcoholic spritzer and one promoting air conditioning. How dare heterosexuals expose our children to that smut, right? Where are the complaints from Christians about the rampant heterosexual sexualization. Lets take all of the sexualization in our society and put it in a bucket - what percentage of that bucket is LGBTQ?

And I guess I'm blind.

---

THEY ARE KILLING THEMELVES THATS CLEARLY HARM. They are also depressed, on drugs ect.

Holy cow this guy is a weasel.

---

The research is fairly clear (though more is needed) that affirming care for transgender people reduces suicidality. Pretty significantly.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36950718/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37123806/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35212746/

This is a sample. There's much more out there. The data is even stronger for LGB people.

---

Not compared to the normal pop. Its still way high. This is a dishonest argument.

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

The Nazis were extremely anti-trans and LGBTQ in general. In the name of social morals and social cohesion. To protect the kids.

---

Just when I thought you had said it all, you go all Godwin on us.

You never disappoint sapper.

---

The discussion was about a quote made in reference to the Nazis. But context has never stopped you before.

---

Fair enough. I have read your posts for years and know what you meant.

Please just be honest.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

HumpitPuryear said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I have a wild idea. . . . You could ask me if that is what I want instead of making assumptions?

---

I did several posts up. You didn't answer then and you didn't answer here either. Hmmm wonder why?

---

I love how you take a thread with over 600 posts and accuse me of dodging because I didn't answer the one post that I missed. Do you think that little of me? Is dodging a perpetual problem when you and I exchange ideas? That is not rhetorical, I would like the feedback, because its never my intent to dodge.

Quote:

---

I actually can't determine what he's advocating for. He wants adults to have the right to transition. They already have that and whether we agree or not that right is not going away. I agree that they do. Preacher was advocating against that right, which is why it was being discussed.

I suspect what he wants, but won't say, is he wants to force companies to hire them. I think that discrimination laws should either not exist or be fully inclusive. Not asking for any special treatment - just equal treatment. For example, if we get rid of all discrimination laws then a company can discriminate against Christians, gays, trans persons, whoever they want. If we have discrimination laws, then Christians, Muslims, gays, trans, everyone gets protected.

He wants to force schools to employ them as teachers. Public schools, yes. Private schools, no.

He wants medical plans (meaning us) to pay the cost of transitioning. That is a hard one that I admit that I am very much conflicted about.

He want's intact males to be allowed into women's locker rooms and bathrooms etc. No.

This is where the problem lies. I don't have any issue with an adult man pretending to be a woman or even mutilating their bodies if that's what they want to do but forcing them on society is wrong. It's like getting a face tattoo. Anyone is allowed to do it if they chose but there are consequences. You are making yourself unemployable in most careers. People are going to have a negative reaction to your appearance. There's a common thread to most liberal causes - no personal responsibility.

While I disagree with you on many things on this topic, I don't really object to anything in this last paragraph. You are more than entitled to your opinion on this issue.

---

So, a couple of questions for you:

* Is a billboard showing a woman in a bikini selling beer acceptable? How about a trans person in a bikini selling beer? Either is acceptable IMO. But there are consequences, as Bud Light found out in spades.

For the next questions - assume we are talking about public schools.

* Is a book containing romance between a man / woman or boy / girl acceptable in a school book - provided there is no explicit or sexual description? Same caveat - how about a romance involving a trans person or two people of the same sex? It should be up to the local school board to decide.

* Is it acceptable for a teacher to mention her husband or his wife with their class - again, provided nothing sexual or explicit? And is it acceptable for a teacher to mention their same sex parter or trans partner - nothing sexual or explicit? School is about learning math, science, reading, writing, etc. Context matters. I don't think that casual mentions of "spouse" and references to gender of that spouse should be suppressed. Hiring and firing decisions should be up to the local school board. There are general rules for behavior and appropriate topics to discuss and ways in which to discuss them. My wife has the child of two lesbians in her class. It would be inappropriate for her to state or imply that having two mothers is wrong same as it would be inappropriate for a trans or gay teacher to say something negative about hetero parents.

* Is a teacher allowed to mention to a class that they are Christian? Is a teacher allowed to mention to class that they are an atheist? Same as above. Casual mentions of going to church, synagogue, etc. are generally acceptable. Context matters. We all know the difference between casual mentioning of something and advocating for something. Don't cross that line. An atheist would have a difficult time casually mentioning that they are atheist unless directly asked about their religion. You don't casually say something like "When I didn't go to church this past Sunday....".

I would say the same thing about symbols. LGBQT looooovvvee to post that rainbow flag everywhere. That is simply not appropriate in school. I would say the same about an alter. But again the local school board is going to determine what is OK and what is not OK and that is OK.

---

Regarding hiring discrimination, We already have laws protecting religion, sexual orientation, etc. My company can't fire me if they find out I'm Christian and support mission work. However, if I show up to work dressed as Jesus in flowing ropes and dragging a cross behind me I'm going to be asked to leave. If I do it again I will likely be fired. It has nothing to do with my being a Christian but everything to do with causing a scene and being disruptive. The same is true with face tattoos and a man dressing in women's clothes and acting out an extreme feminine persona.

The problem with the trans and LGBQT community and activists is they generally don't want to blend in. They don't want to be a transparent cog in the machine. If they did most of the pushback would dissipate. They (not necessarily you) want men in women's locker rooms and in women's sports, etc. They want to act like Dylan Mulvaney the attention *****. They want to force themselves into church pulpits. They want to force transgenderism on schools and communities that have no interest in it. You can say that they just want to live their lives like everyone else but their actions and activism doesn't support that notion.

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

So where are the gluttony parades? Or the month of lust?

C' mon man.

---

Again, you completely fail to understand the causal relationship.

There are no gluttony or lust parades because Christians don't care about people committing those sins. The whole point is that if you treated other sins the way you treat LGBTQ sins, then those sins would have a parade and a month.

---

I disagree. Christians do care about those other sins.
When is the last time you were in a church? How would you know?

And if you are going to continue to point out Christian hypocrisy, you have to acknowledge the hypocrisy of the militant LGBT folks. To my knowledge, no other sin is thrown in our face like this one.

---

Maybe they do care about those sins. But they aren't passing laws trying to control people's gluttony or lust. It's viewed as a personal responsibility matter.

Not the case with LGBT, in which they continuous pass laws meant to control and oppress that group of people.

I can't tell you how many times one of my kids teachers had crosses and Christian symbolism in their classrom, yet a rainbow is a bridge too far.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I'm serious. I would like for you tell me what you think I'm supposed to blame LGBTQ persons for.

---

Well I would start by pushing damaging behavior even on children.

How about public lewd behavior at parades, etc?

You are blind if you can not see the damage caused by promoting this lifestyle.

---

The concern I have about your first sentence is the word 'damaging'. If your definition of damaging includes anything not consistent with Christianity, then a Hindu raising their child in their faith is 'pushing damaging behavior' on children. I'm not going to condemn someone for believing as they do. That is your job apparently.

Are there LGBTQ persons that have harmed children. Absolutely. And I don't make excuses for their behavior. I also don't apply blanket condemnation of all people for the transgressions of some. Like, I don't think you owe an apology for all the kids raped by priests. Being also a Christian doesn't make you personally responsible for the actions of every Christian.

I'm not advocating for public lewd behavior. I also don't condemn all LGBTQ persons for 'crossing of the line' at parades. Similarly, I don't condemn Christianity for what goes on at Mardi Gras?

And while we are on the topic of lewd behavior. There are two billboards I drive by on my way into work with women in bikinis - one for some alcoholic spritzer and one promoting air conditioning. How dare heterosexuals expose our children to that smut, right? Where are the complaints from Christians about the rampant heterosexual sexualization. Lets take all of the sexualization in our society and put it in a bucket - what percentage of that bucket is LGBTQ?

And I guess I'm blind.

---

THEY ARE KILLING THEMELVES THATS CLEARLY HARM. They are also depressed, on drugs ect.

Holy cow this guy is a weasel.

---

The research is fairly clear (though more is needed) that affirming care for transgender people reduces suicidality. Pretty significantly.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36950718/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37123806/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35212746/

This is a sample. There's much more out there. The data is even stronger for LGB people.

---

Not compared to the normal pop. Its still way high. This is a dishonest argument.

---

These are typically not long-term studies and also fail to quantify or control for other mental health treatments like meds and counseling. The long-term studies come to different conclusions especially long-term success for medical transitioning.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13263725/trans-kids-change-sex-adults-study.html

Macarthur said:

---

I can't tell you how many times one of my kids teachers had crosses and Christian symbolism in their classrom, yet a rainbow is a bridge too far.

---

In some school districts, yes. And that's OK. You can homeschool. That's what Christians do that don't agree with how their local public school operates.

I had to spend some time in Pakistan for work. I could have worn a "Christ is King" ball cap or tee shirt. I didn't. It didn't change that I was a Christian but I respected the majority sentiment of the place I was working. There's really nothing wrong with that. I didn't feel oppressed I felt like I was being respectful and doing my best to get along.

A few years ago my daughter made friends with a 10 year old girl from school and the two of them wanted to do a sleepover at our house. We met with the family to discuss it and the family informed us that the girl is a lesbian. The stepmother happens to be a LGBTQ professor at a local university.

Almost at the same time this couple had a son who is around 4 years old now. The son is supposedly transgender and was Barbie for Halloween (yes he was in all pink etc).

What this couple is doing to their children is child abuse as destructive as if they beat them with rods. The LGBTQ ideology will destroy those kids' lives and nobody cares enough to do anything about it.

barbacoa taco said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

So where are the gluttony parades? Or the month of lust?

C' mon man.

---

Again, you completely fail to understand the causal relationship.

There are no gluttony or lust parades because Christians don't care about people committing those sins. The whole point is that if you treated other sins the way you treat LGBTQ sins, then those sins would have a parade and a month.

---

I disagree. Christians do care about those other sins.
When is the last time you were in a church? How would you know?

And if you are going to continue to point out Christian hypocrisy, you have to acknowledge the hypocrisy of the militant LGBT folks. To my knowledge, no other sin is thrown in our face like this one.

---

Maybe they do care about those sins. But they aren't passing laws trying to control people's gluttony or lust. It's viewed as a personal responsibility matter.

Not the case with LGBT, in which they continuous pass laws meant to control and oppress that group of people.

---

How can you pass a law against lust?

Macarthur said:

---

HumpitPuryear said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

I can't tell you how many times one of my kids teachers had crosses and Christian symbolism in their classrom, yet a rainbow is a bridge too far.

---

In some school districts, yes. And that's OK. You can homeschool. That's what Christians do that don't agree with how their local public school operates.

I had to spend some time in Pakistan for work. I could have worn a "Christ is King" ball cap or tee shirt. I didn't. It didn't change that I was a Christian but I respected the majority sentiment of the place I was working. There's really nothing wrong with that. I didn't feel oppressed I felt like I was being respectful and doing my best to get along.

---

It doesn't bother me because I've been born and raised in Texas and that's just the way it is.

I still find it funny that a rainbow is still a bridge too far.

---

Like Biden encroaching on Easter, the rainbow symbol is an
encroachment on the Christian belief that God presented a
rainbow after the Great Flood as a promise there would
not be another Great Flood.
Yeah, it may seem like the Christians and Moslems have claimed
all the good stuff - because they are much older -
I believe the order is Jew, Christ, Mohammed, Spaghetti God.

But he didn't. This thread has proved that it was just how the dates fell. Just because one group has used a symbol doesn't mean they own it.

Geez, it really does make you guys sound like petulant children.

Macarthur said:

---

I can't tell you how many times one of my kids teachers had crosses and Christian symbolism in their classrom, yet a rainbow is a bridge too far.

---

What harm does a cross do? I believe promoting the LGBT agenda does harm. You do not.

We will agree to disagree.

That is why we have elections so that the states can pass legislation their voters support.

Rongagin71 said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

HumpitPuryear said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

I can't tell you how many times one of my kids teachers had crosses and Christian symbolism in their classrom, yet a rainbow is a bridge too far.

---

In some school districts, yes. And that's OK. You can homeschool. That's what Christians do that don't agree with how their local public school operates.

I had to spend some time in Pakistan for work. I could have worn a "Christ is King" ball cap or tee shirt. I didn't. It didn't change that I was a Christian but I respected the majority sentiment of the place I was working. There's really nothing wrong with that. I didn't feel oppressed I felt like I was being respectful and doing my best to get along.

---

It doesn't bother me because I've been born and raised in Texas and that's just the way it is.

I still find it funny that a rainbow is still a bridge too far.

---

Like Biden encroaching on Easter, the rainbow symbol is an
encroachment on the Christian belief that God presented a
rainbow after the Great Flood as a promise there would
not be another Great Flood.
Yeah, it may seem like the Christians and Moslems have claimed
all the good stuff - because they are much older -
I believe the order is Jew, Christ, Mohammed, Spaghetti God.

---

They don't worship the spaghetti god, they worship themselves, their own made up ethics.

Or transgender baphomet.

Macarthur said:

---

But he didn't. This thread has proved that it was just how the dates fell. Just because one group has used a symbol doesn't mean they own it.

Geez, it really does make you guys sound like petulant children.

---

Ever listen to any pro LGBT spokespeople? This goes both ways.

And are the LGBT proponents okay with schools teaching adultery, alcoholism, smoking, or other harmful behavior is a good idea?

I mean adultery is between two consenting adults, correct? And does not personally affect you or me.

Macarthur said:

---

HumpitPuryear said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

I can't tell you how many times one of my kids teachers had crosses and Christian symbolism in their classrom, yet a rainbow is a bridge too far.

---

In some school districts, yes. And that's OK. You can homeschool. That's what Christians do that don't agree with how their local public school operates.

I had to spend some time in Pakistan for work. I could have worn a "Christ is King" ball cap or tee shirt. I didn't. It didn't change that I was a Christian but I respected the majority sentiment of the place I was working. There's really nothing wrong with that. I didn't feel oppressed I felt like I was being respectful and doing my best to get along.

---

It doesn't bother me because I've been born and raised in Texas and that's just the way it is.

I still find it funny that a rainbow is still a bridge too far.

---

No, protection of our kids and grandkids is a bridge too far. And you do not seem to get that. I assume you do not have kids?

HumpitPuryear said:

---

Regarding hiring discrimination, We already have laws protecting religion, sexual orientation, etc. My company can't fire me if they find out I'm Christian and support mission work. However, if I show up to work dressed as Jesus in flowing ropes and dragging a cross behind me I'm going to be asked to leave. If I do it again I will likely be fired. It has nothing to do with my being a Christian but everything to do with causing a scene and being disruptive. The same is true with face tattoos and a man dressing in women's clothes and acting out an extreme feminine persona.

The problem with the trans and LGBQT community and activists is they generally don't want to blend in. They don't want to be a transparent cog in the machine. If they did most of the pushback would dissipate. They (not necessarily you) want men in women's locker rooms and in women's sports, etc. They want to act like Dylan Mulvaney the attention *****. They want to force themselves into church pulpits. They want to force transgenderism on schools and communities that have no interest in it. You can say that they just want to live their lives like everyone else but their actions and activism doesn't support that notion.

---

Thank you for the response. By and large, while we fall on different sides of part of this debate, I think your responses largely suggest that a consistent standard be applied. And I think we agree on a reasonable number of those points (which I didn't copy over). I don't see an issue with companies establishing dress codes. Showing up dressed like Jesus is unacceptable in most businesses. As would showing up with ass-less chaps and a fishnet shirt. I think that I am, not surprisingly, more to the left regarding a man in woman's clothes or vice versa. Provided a person dresses in business attire and the things that need to be covered and covered etc., I don't really care.

Regarding the second paragraph, I think there is a difference between 'standing out' and being disruptively standing out. When I read your first couple of sentences in this paragraph I imagine a beige office filled with identical looking employees with the same hair, same suit, same shoes, same glasses, and employee badges with employee numbers rather than names. I know I'm stretching here and I know that this isn't what you are advocating. Someone wearing a brightly colored shirt (male/felmale/straight/not straight/whatever) isn't disruptive . . . . unless maybe you are a mortician. But, to your point, yes - there can be loudness and flamboyancy in the LGBTQ crowd. As long as the standards are reasonable and are consistently applied, I don't see a problem.

Regarding your last sentence. I may be biased based on the gay people that I do know, but I worry that the stereotype of the loud, super flamboyant, in your face gay man is simply the loudest voice we all hear and so there is a tendency to think that this is how all gay people act. I think for every person that I've described above, there are 10 people you might never know where gay until you really got to know them.

Just like. . . If my only exposure to Christianity is watching the news then my perception of Christianity is going to be that they are a religious-political organization bent on their flavor of social order and Marjorie Taylor Green would be the Queen of all Christians. Of course, I know Christians and I know that this descriptions is radically incorrect.

dermdoc said:

---

And are the LGBT proponents okay with schools teaching adultery, alcoholism, smoking, or other harmful behavior is a good idea?

I mean adultery is between two consenting adults, correct? And does not personally affect you or me.

---

No.

Did one of us make the argument that schools should be teaching LGBTQ as a good idea?

dermdoc said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

HumpitPuryear said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

I can't tell you how many times one of my kids teachers had crosses and Christian symbolism in their classrom, yet a rainbow is a bridge too far.

---

In some school districts, yes. And that's OK. You can homeschool. That's what Christians do that don't agree with how their local public school operates.

I had to spend some time in Pakistan for work. I could have worn a "Christ is King" ball cap or tee shirt. I didn't. It didn't change that I was a Christian but I respected the majority sentiment of the place I was working. There's really nothing wrong with that. I didn't feel oppressed I felt like I was being respectful and doing my best to get along.

---

It doesn't bother me because I've been born and raised in Texas and that's just the way it is.

I still find it funny that a rainbow is still a bridge too far.

---

No, protection of our kids and grandkids is a bridge too far. And you do not seem to get that. I assume you do not have kids?

---

Jesus.

I have three kids and my last one graduated HS in 23. and to your previous post, I do not remember one time my kids mentioning being taught anything about LGBTQ.

Can you give me examples of schools 'teaching LGBTQ' and what that means? Not sensationalized anecdotes from libs of tik tok. I'm also not talking about teachers simply acknowledging that these types of folks exist. I want some hard info on schools and curriculum on teaching LGBTQ.

Kindly refrain from taking our Lord's name in vain.

Macarthur said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

HumpitPuryear said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

I can't tell you how many times one of my kids teachers had crosses and Christian symbolism in their classrom, yet a rainbow is a bridge too far.

---

In some school districts, yes. And that's OK. You can homeschool. That's what Christians do that don't agree with how their local public school operates.

I had to spend some time in Pakistan for work. I could have worn a "Christ is King" ball cap or tee shirt. I didn't. It didn't change that I was a Christian but I respected the majority sentiment of the place I was working. There's really nothing wrong with that. I didn't feel oppressed I felt like I was being respectful and doing my best to get along.

---

It doesn't bother me because I've been born and raised in Texas and that's just the way it is.

I still find it funny that a rainbow is still a bridge too far.

---

No, protection of our kids and grandkids is a bridge too far. And you do not seem to get that. I assume you do not have kids?

---

Jesus.

I have three kids and my last one graduated HS in 23. and to your previous post, I do not remember one time my kids mentioning being taught anything about LGBTQ.

Can you give me examples of schools 'teaching LGBTQ' and what that means? Not sensationalized anecdotes from libs of tik tok. I'm also not talking about teachers simply acknowledging that these types of folks exist. I want some hard info on schools and curriculum on teaching LGBTQ.

---

Get on X and evidence some interest in teachers pushing LGBTQ by doing things like forming groups to participate in Gay Pride Parades and you will see plenty.
If you dislike Libs of Tik Tok, try following Andy Ngo, J K Rowling, and/or Gov Abbott.