Recent comments in /f/springfieldMO

golfercraig t1_jbh9zx5 wrote

250 on campus students. They use athletes to keep it alive. Give them a “scholarship” that doesn’t equal cost of attendance, and then all the kids from the small towns in the area get to say they’re playing college sports

https://www.news-leader.com/story/sports/college/2023/01/08/how-bbc-basketball-turned-things-around-for-dying-athletic-department/69721935007/

54

SeriesRandomNumbers t1_jbh9urw wrote

If it’s such a obvious simple solution please tell me where you would have it go and both primary and secondary stops.

I’ve lived places with great public transit and would love to have it here, but the layout around here doesn’t make a good argument for it. I should also add that I would happily pay more tax to make it happen. Public transit always looks easy from the outside and the bus system here isn’t really that bad, not great but alright.

18

BataMahn3 t1_jbh2082 wrote

Are you saying there's never been a gay person who's married the opposite sex? Or were they straight when they married their wife and now they're gay? And if that's the case, were they born gay? And if so, how would marrying a woman suddenly make the gay man straight? Or were you assuming someone was straight simply because they're married to the opposite sex? Do you know that marriage has nothing to do with sexual orientation?

1

BataMahn3 t1_jbh14wt wrote

I don't like his example because Martha being his wife has nothing to do with teachers teaching sexual orientation\gender... are they saying that gay people dont\haven't married someone of the opposite gender? Martha being his wife is a verifiable fact with legal documentation (marriage license). He's pretending the teacher is saying, "George Washington was straight, identified as a male, and married Martha because of that" (an assumption) when in reality all the teachers would be saying is, "George Washington was married to Martha" which is a historical fact. Pretending teachers couldn't teach something like who's married to who because that somehow implies sexual orientation is not a good faith argument and is obviously miles away from what this silly lady was intending with her silly bill, which appears to aim to keep that stuff out of the classroom.

2