We've designated Marriage as the Civil partnership, and Weddings as a church ceremony, although yes. it does get confused by some. But ya gotta have that marriage license - it's a courtesy extended to ship captains and religious leaders.

In England there have been women marrying themselves, which her would be considered a wedding, because there is not any partnership formed.

There has been the case where women marry their dogs. Look it up. That's still a wedding, dogs cannot enter into partnerships, and that is maximum level creepy as well.

Marriage the partnership is secular, and that is because it is a legal partnership.

Weddings are a religious function, and allowing priests and ship captains to perform them is simply a courtesy. But try getting married in a church with no marriage license and you'll see where the line is.

Right away there is a problem. If equal property is to be enforced where each partner has 50 percent of the assets upon dissolution, there has a be a business framework. Full of the accounting and distribution process.

Indeed, as these things go before the courts, the woman my end up with quite a bit more than 50 percent if there are children involved. She might end up with the house and the car, in addition to all of the standard split down the middle things.

As well, since she is also entitled to half of everything of his in perpetuity, such as his retirement, to have no government involvement is impossible.

A marriage is essentially a business partnership. And that's where the asme sex marriage ended up being legalized, because same sex couples did not enjoy the same protections. Mainly because if two men or two women couldn't enter into that partnership state as a marriage, they would be restricted in business as well.

They have been taught that deconstruction of the present system is right and proper.

They have been taught that all problems are the result of those who wield penises.

They have been taught that other than providing sperm, the male is useless

They have been taught that in all cases, they are right - they are blameless

How does this happen? One of the first things is understanding that most humans have a deep seated need to hate something.

So part of the modern womanist ideology taps into that need. So after being taught that all your problems are because of men, all of the other things just fall into place. You don't need a man in your life, but you have a biological drive to have children, so you either get one temporarily, or it is just as easy to go to a bar and find a friend for the night, and since you are alway right, that is a good decision.

The problem of course is something you have alluded to in a previous post - children of single mothers often have poor outcomes.

As well, since you have been taught that you are always right, your choices in men to have sex with can be sub optimal.

Tingles. Oh those tingles. Women being attracted to bad boys is something denied in clear view.

Even my wife, who one day tried to claim that I was a nice guy, and tried to disagree with the bad boy thing - but then mentioned how she used to get the tingles. I noted that when we met, I was in a rock band, raced motorcycles motocross, and drag raced them and cars, and played Ice Hockey.

I never mistreated women in any way, but I was the embodiment of bad boy. But most bad boys are not particularly good for women.

But harkening back to the concept of being never wrong, women used to figure out during high school that bad boys give you the tingles, but aren't good for you. Many today do not figure that out until much later.

Of course, the male and female couple is critical for raising successful children into adulthood. Even same sex couples can be as long as one takes the standard roles. There has to be a nurturer, and there has to be a disciplinarian.

The woman's part is to nurture and keep the wee ones alive and healthy. The males part is to provide discipline and teach boundaries. As you note, it has worked for thousands of years, and is a big part of the success of humanity. Children raised without discipline do not have good outcomes.

As for your last part, no, there is no need for a person to be of a particular religion or lack of it. I'm also an atheist, leaning slightly right, but I am a pragmatist.

And seeing the new trend of Western men leaving the country to find wives, (the Passport Bro's) it is not beyond the pale to believe that womanism has suffered overreach.

You have not provided me the citation I asked for. Allow me to give you the official account. Because there were three separate requests for help made by the Debris Assessment Team and others to the DOD. The DoD was exploring assets to help with that until asshat Linda Ham squashed the requests. This is first mentioned on page 37 of the CAIB report. The three imagery Requests:

Imagery Request 1 - Page 140 CAIB Report. Intercenter Photo Working Group Bob Page contacted Shuttle Program Manager for Launch Integration to request imagery of Columbia's left wing. Meeyings were held, and people worked the issue from Boeing and others.

Imagery Request 2 - Page 150 CAIB Report ULA manager Bob White called NASA's Lambert Austin about getting imagery. Austin then called NASA's Don McCormack, who then contacted LtCol Timothy Lee to ask if they had an asset to image the Shuttle. Lee said they were working the request.

Image request 3 - Page 151 CAIB report. The Debris Assessment Team assigned Co-Chair Rodney Rocha to pursue on orbit imagery. Response - DoD representative at NASA contacted USSSTRATCOM at Cheyenne Mountain to ask what it would take to get imagery. USSSTRATCOM initiated actions to identify assets

Within 90 minutes, the request was rescinded. CAIB Report Page 153. Ham was more concerened with who made the informal request to the DoD. Ham also did not want to spend any time maneuvering the vehicle. She also wanted to make clear that the DoD was not to take unauthorized requests.

The official decision - CAIB Report Page 156 “USA Program Manager/Loren Shriver, NASA Manager, Program Integration/Linda Ham, & NASA SSVEO/Ralph Roe have stated that there is no need for the Air Force to take a look at the vehicle.” Ham Made the decision. It was definitely an odd decision, perhaps based more on her annoyance that people didn't go through official channels. I've seldom seen the need for less intel when working a problem

Ham, as I said a long time ago, "Squashed" the request from NASA employees, and further demanded that only official requests from specific people be heeded.

Here's the Official CAIB report link. Take up your pointless word smithing with them https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/cita...

I see, so it is definitely his fault - some rando CNN reporter not raising his voice is what caused this. He needs arrested and jailed for murder of the astronauts. /s

NASA knew there was a strike - where do you think the image he saw came from? Russia, CNN's super high technology space Telescope? NASA knew of the strike - long before the CNN reporter. They did some sort of analysis analysis and determined incorrectly that it was not a problem.

Sheesh - is it so important for you to be contrary that you correct things that are already correct? Engineers at NASA requested hi-res images of the underside of Columbia, and were turned down by Manager Linda Ham. There were 3 separate requests - all turned down, which was a departure from normal procedure. From the CAIB report: "In the face of Mission managers' low level of concern and desire to get on with the mission ... the engineers found themselves in the unusual position of having to prove that the situation was unsafe - a reversal of the usual requirement to prove that a situation is safe."

Later in an unusual departure from the "Screw up, Move up" meme, Linda Ham was demoted. I have to imagine in the cold hard light of the aftermath, that she feels worse than O'brien.

Anyhow - I'd love to see your citations. Linda Ham said no, and that my friend was the squashing I referred to.

Multiple parts here:

That's a pretty big "may". I really do understand the concept of guilt, but I'm kind of skeptical that he was the only one on earth that saw the image. Of course he wasn't.

Another thing is that NASA knew there was something that might have happened to Columbia, and that something was that a hunk of foam hit the leading edge of the left wing. This is pretty well documented. There was even a squashed attempt to get some military assets to image the underside of the bird.

Another thing is the concept of quickly launching another orbiter in time to save the Columbia astronauts. That would probably have just destroyed another Shuttle and crew. If successful, it would have been a story for the ages, but launching is pretty complex.

O'brien just suffered one of those "Oh shit!" moments, and like so many of us do , ended up blaming himself.

I'd recommend he read through the entire Columbia accident report if he hasn't already. Maybe some counseling as well.

Finally, to answer your query as to what is wrong with some of us, people trot out their favorite axes to grind, some hate news reportage and want anything other than their narrative to be censored, some hate CNN because fecking leeburls, and other axes get finely ground on what is a human story by this point. I think the words we are looking for is "heartless fucks"

It is a strange thing that a reporter seems to believe that he was the point of failure that killed the Columbia crew. But not unusual in that reporters are humans just like the people who hate reporters.

I'm sure at the time he felt quite unsettled after putting 2 and 2 together, but at the same time, he didn't have access to anything NASA had. They all had a pretty good idea what was going on.

Now just between us snipes, my own thoughts on the proximate cause of the Columbia disaster came about when that fuel tank changed from white to orange - they stopped painting the fuel tank to save weight. And foam perhaps started falling off. I surmised that the paint would have done a better job holding the foam together - especially in the spots where the foam was hand applied.

Afterwards when they were looking for suggestions, I made one that they return to painting the tank, preferably with a rubberized paint. Never went anywhere. Might have been a bad idea, might have been politically awkward.

Although my whole input in this discussion was telling someone that you don't need fossil fuel hydrocarbons for rockets - there are other sources of energy that will suffice, Hydrogen/Oxygen with Solid Rocket boosters fueled with aluminum will get our asses off the planet quite nicely.

But since so many believe that without coal and oil, there is no other path to meaningful civilization, I'll wade in one time. How would we ever progress past the stone age if there was no such thing as Petroleum or coal? I'll even throw in no natgas as a gratuity. It would be different, and no doubt, but the idea that without petrochemicals and coal, humans would be stuck in the Stone age or near it is not far from the idea that has shows like "Ancient Aliens" be popular. The idea that humans aren't that smart or capable.

Humans are pretty smart, even if we do stupid things on occasion.

What would it be like? It is a fascinating thought experiment. The key concept is energy sources. So we have hydraulic, geothermal, solar, fire from wood and charcoal, and of course atomic power. Animals as a source of propulsion and work.

The Roman Empire and China developed a lot of infrastructure without much if any fossil fuels. (note - many cultures made use of random pitch outcroppings)

There was competent engineering and science that happened before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

So yes, it would be different. But not insurmountable, it would just be technological progress on a different arc.

Anyhow, that's all the further I'll dip into an argument that I'm not making. To reiterate, Rocket fuel is not tied to Petrofuels, even if a few of the available fuels like RP1 are fossil fuel based.

Cute attempt to change the subject. But if you must be pedantic, yeah, a gunpowder toy is a rocket, so is a water bottle rocket, and yes, in China they used rockets with gunpowder as a propellent. Being that the definition of a rocket is any vehicle that uses jet propulsion as a acceleration without using the surrounding atmosphere.

Apologies if I didn't write an essay.

Now it is my turn to ask questions - Does aluminum smelting have to happen at a coal or Petroleum powered site?

No hydroelectric or nuclear power for smelting?

But! My comments were to poster claiming that you can reach orbit unless you use organics anyway.

So unless you can prove that all aluminum used in solid rocket boosters requires hydrocarbon produced electricity or it will not work, spare me the lectures about how the poster I was replying to is correct.

You seem to be wrapped around the axle, and believe that gunpowder is what is used in solid booster rockets.

You might look up what solid rocket boosters use as their energy source. Until then, I can tell you that it is mostly Aluminum.

So lecturing people like you have been about the impossibility of escaping Earth's gravity well unless you are using carbon based fuel might require a better understanding of Rockets and their components.

This is all running at a tangent anyhow. That petroleum based substances exist and can be used isn't the thing. We of course could refine petroleum to RP-1 without creating the petroleum ecosystem we have today. And we'd have a nice hydrocarbon based fuel. And that process could exist in an an ecosystem that uses its petroleum for things other than terrestrial propulsion.

I don't know any rockets using gunpowder.

psst. We usually use aluminum mixed with a perchlorate as a booster.

At that point, your robots are killing humans, so the robot/robot destruction was just an extra step, and the purpose of war has been preserved.