posted
Chris: Your belief system would include your religion, but not be limited to it. And the context in which things have meaning for you overlaps that of others in many points. Otherwise, how would we understand each other at all? How would 300 million people (willingly) coexist under one government? I submit that if someone doesn't share your religious beliefs, their ideas aren't necessarily meaningless to you. They're not completely out of your own context. There are many different directions in which to understand your fellow human beings.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So. . . people's lives can only be controlled on the merits of secular philosophy?"
As a side note, Scott, how does permitting a gay man to marry another gay man control your life, or limit your freedom to marry whom you wish?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just think we need to take things a little more slowly. I think it was a different thread where they compared this to forced integration (with forced integration being a good thing). But integration had been over 100 years in coming since having been made legal. I think the mainstream (whatever that is) should have a chance to deal with the problems that already afflict marriage before turning over the meaning of the word.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, if a white guy paints his face black and applies to a college as a black man, does that hurt blacks?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would argue that the mainstream has had 2000 years to deal with the problems that afflict marriage, and well over 150 years to deal with the problems that afflict the modern definition of marriage, and yet don't seem to be getting any better at "fixing" it. Should we expect people to wait indefinitely, until a solution is found that has so far eluded hundreds of generations?
------
pooka: no, unless the school has only a limited number of slots dedicated to black students. And if that's the case, your analogy is broken; two gay men marrying do not prevent a heterosexual couple from marrying, as there's no functional limitation on the number of marriages that can be performed.
posted
pooka, it doesn't if they are applying to a school that has as part of it's rules/bylaws that race doesn't matter in any way, as far as admission criteria are concerned.
posted
Well, let's look at divorce. It used to be that people who should get divorced didn't. I don't know that the popularization of divorce has helped, because women who like being victims still find reasons to stay. But I think the divorce "problem" is mainly in the last few decades.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl, you are a beautiful man. I wish I knew more people like you - calm yet passionate, loving even under attack. I have no doubt you would be an excellent parent.
I was raised among people who mostly think as OSC on the issue of public homosexuality. It's hard to be able to see both sides of the issue, and even though I don't agree with "forbidding" homosexual marriage, I understand the people who would do so.
Olivia, I think you said it best - marriage is an IDEA, and it exists in the mind only. That doesn't make it any less real, but it does make it infinitely malleable in interpretation. Think of Love, Peace, Art, Hate, War. All ideas, with varying interpretations.
So, I am wondering something. Does "Civil Union", with all the same legal rights and privileges as "Holy Matrimony", mean the same thing? Could people who don't want religious marriage have a civil union, and be content to call it that? What's the difference between the two? I'm just wondering if perhaps a public compromise could be reached - allowing unions of homosexual and other couples without the divisive word marriage. Is it a matter of semantics or is it something else?
I am really aggrieved by this situation, because I live in the heart of a community that celebrates "National Day of Prayer" and prays against the pagans and homosexuals as well as asking support for our leaders and grace for our homes. I don't understand how all this can go hand-in-glove. I don't know quite how to dispel the misinformation and prejudice I see all around me. I want to be a bridge builder, yet I don't know how.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would argue that the divorce "problem" is merely reflective of the fact that, in the past, women were generally trapped in loveless and abusive marriages.
It's true that many divorces are frivolous in nature -- but, then, most such marriages are frivolous in nature, and have been throughout history. The difference is that the availability of divorce has made it possible for people who are miserable in a frivolous or abusive marriage to escape that situation.
It can be argued that this may have led to an increase in the number of frivolous marriages. I don't believe this to be the case.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish war were just an idea. I guess by this definition life and death are also ideas. Which certainly is one approach.
Anyway, I used to think the marriage sanctity definition was too extreme a reaction, but I guess if I have to pick a side, that is where I would land.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, again, let me reiterate: what about gay marriage threatens the sanctity of your marriage, pooka?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, more to the point, it doesn't answer Tom's question. I've yet to see a religion that teaches that you are defined by the actions of those around you.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's ask KarlEd how he feels about being a second-class citizen again, shall we? Or how his relationship with his partner is like "playing dress-up?"
No harm there at all, I assume?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka, I didn't entend to be either funny or hurtful. The glib part of me almost wrote "most", but the serious side of me went for "average". I've known quite a few mothers. I've also known a few exemplary mothers. Were I in the position to fill that role, I'd do my level best to emulate the exemplary ones.
And far from gay men being dismissive of women's contributions to society, most of the gay men I know feel that women have gotten the short end of the stick for millennia. I, for one, think that if more men raised themselves, as fathers, to the level of parenting of the average mother there would be a lot less strife and suffering in the world. But then, I tend to believe that most people, myself included, fall somewhere short of their potential. But I also believe in self improvement. Unfortunately, most people I know are satisfied with far less than they could be.
Chris, anytime.
AFR, my response probably came across as stronger than I intended. I'm just frustrated because I feel that I genuinely do understand the religious point of view and have considered it carfully. However, I do not feel that many of the overtly religious on this board have tried even in the slightest to understand my point of view or how this situation affects genuine individuals. It is all to easy to lump us in a group, stamp "sinners" on our foreheads and thus discount any possible legitimacy our arguements may have because, hey, God's on your side anyway. Now I realize that your post wasn't doing that, but it did come across to me (partly because of timing, I guess) as putting forth the saving of my soul as a justification for denying to my what I feel is a right I should have -- a right that, if granted, does not hurt anyone in any significant way nor diminish any of their currently enjoyed freedoms. (Again, I'm sounding angry, I know. I am reacting to these ideas, not to you personally.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jenny, you set up a bit of a false dilemna, since civil marriage is not "Holy Matrimony", and no one is arguing that gays should be allowed to participate in the "Holy Matrimony" of a religion that does not recognize such a pairing as holy.
I've written to my state legislator saying that while I agree with civil gay marriage, I would never vote for my home church to recognize it as equal. I just don't see the tenets of my religion as supporting it (even if I see no concrete reason for it to be so).
posted
pooka, it may be offensive (in my case from a bad humor POV), I don't think it's requires legislative modification to keep people with bad senses of humor for expressing it, since it doesn't harm anyone but those who choose to associate with them.
posted
I really don't see how allowing gay couples to marry would damage my own marriage or family life. It might mean that I'd have to re-evaluate how I tell my little girl about her options for when she grows up. She COULD marry another girl, if she wanted to.
Hmmm. Just typing that made me suddenly uncomfortable. Hmmm.
I mean, if Abby was a lesbian because she couldn't help it, that would be one thing and I'd be okay with it. But if she wanted to marry a girl and wouldn't go through that awkward dating crap just because she didn't feel like messing around with annoying boys, I'd feel like she'd be missing out on something in her life. It almost makes it too easy for girls and boys to avoid each other more and making important intimate connections. Hmmm.
I'll have to think more about these sudden thoughts. It seems that gay marriage wouldn't threaten my own marriage, but I feel awkward and uncomfortable about it when it comes to my child.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This gay marriage thing may result in a re-think of the laws banning plural marriage. Truly liberal-minded folks must admit that plural marriages between consenting adults are just as acceptable as gay marriages.
Where will that leave the LDS Church? Will Mormons once again embrace plural marriage? Will liberal-minded folks worldwide rally in support of Mormons with multiple wives?
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then again, I wonder if it would raise the standards for both men and women to treat each other well. If women were pairing up, would guys go out of their way to become the best people they could be, so that girls would admire them and want to be with them? And vice versa?
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
advice for robots - religious beliefs do indeed overlap, but only the ones that can be defined without recourse to faith should be applied as law.
Thou Shalt Not Steal is not solely a religious injunction, theft is a crime against another person with an obvious harm and an obvious victim, no faith in eternal justice needed. Same with murder, same with bearing false witness. Making a law banning certain kinds of food on certain days would be an example of religious laws that should not be forced on the entire community.
Scott R: Tom-- how would confining homosexual unions to childlessness hurt anyone? It would harm homosexuals with kids from previous marriages, homosexuals who want to raise children with their partners, and right now it hurts the thousands of kids that aren't being adopted by straight parents.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
skillery, well I guess I'm not a true liberal then. OSC is wrong again!
Jenny, I don't see why your daughter would find dating a woman any easier than dating a man. From my anecdotal, non-scientific, experience, I've found that many women can't stand other women, by comparison to how they can handle men.
Also, my girlfriend, who grew up in a supremely liberal town, amongst many gays who were or were not in relationships, has not had it affect her one iota. This is a girl who had trouble dating, and could certainly have been a prime subject of the behavior you worry about for your daughter, except for one thing. She has absolutely no attraction to women. Which ends up being a rather large stumbling block, as you might expect.
Of course, the larger issue of your dilemma (actually gay vs. gay by convenience) is that how can you tell? Worse, what if she's bisexual, but with a predisposition to men. Her behavior could look a lot like your fear, and she might even describe in similar terms, but that doesn't mean it isn't just her sexuality expressing itself.
posted
Gay marriage certainly would change a lot of things, societally. Entertainment would start including lots more gay characters, with more diverse portrayals. Would gay sexuality be promoted as a way for teens to be sexual without risking pregnancy? Would sexuality start to have much less of a biological meaning and much more of an entertainment preference sort of meaning? Promiscuous folks would continue to be promiscuous, and those preferring abstinence would still wait for "the one", but would their attitudes about whom they were with change?
I really am just curious, and wanting to explore the issue.
On the other hand, what if we refuse to wrestle with these issues by just "forbidding" gay marriages? Like it or not, the issue is here and it's in our faces. We must talk about it, and we must deal with it. I'm just wondering what happens next and how to roll with all the interesting things that will happen in the aftermath of decisions.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jenny G, I like both you and jeniwren very much even if we disagree. And where we do disagree, even if strongly disagree, I feel more frustrated than angry because I like you both and wish you'd share my point of view.
Bok is right about the "false dillemma". No one in Boston or SF are fighting for "Holy Matrimony". In fact, the big irony there is if I really wanted "Holy Matrimony" I could get that from the local Unitarian Church or any one of a number of other more liberal churches across the country. I have gay friends who consider themselves married in the eyes of God (and yes, the Christian god) and think that Jesus blesses their union. Bizarre as I find that, more power to them.
But to answer the spirit of your question, were it truly possible to create a "civil union" that was equal to "marriage", sure, I'd be fine with that. However, I agree with the Mass. court. Separate but equal is seldom equal. And truly, what has been saved if something exactly equal to marriage, but called something else, is granted to homosexuals? I really want to know? Is it really just the word that Christian activist want to save? Well, why don't you settle for keeping "Holy Matrimony". I hereby give this word to the Christian community on behalf of all the homosexuals in America. (Give me a week to organize the brunch and I'll have the signatures for you. )
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: right now it hurts the thousands of kids that aren't being adopted by straight parents.
Right now, what are the stats on homosexuals being denied adoptive 'rights?'
What are the numbers on homosexual couples expressing a desire to adopt?
As to the other points, Chris-- I have no objetions to biological families of all sorts. Which opens up quite a moral can of worms for me. Bullet, I bite thee.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, KarlEd, I'm with you on this one. I'm trying to go deeper into myself and struggle with what gay marriage means to me, personally. My first instinct when all this stuff started happening was that OF COURSE we should allow gay marriages. And I defended OSC's article because I could see what he was doing with it and because I considered it a good piece of writing. But I still considered gay marriage "no big deal". Why not have it? And then whe I delved deeper, I found that the issue is not simple at all, because it strikes at my sense of how the world works and what sexuality is all about, and how I raise my kid. I think that gay marriages are inevitable, whether one agrees with having them or not. I, personally, am not finding it threatening, but I do find it changing my perspective and world view. It's a little scary, but that's hardly anybody's fault. I think the world is more mutable than it seems, sometimes.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl, my objections *aren't* religious. They're very much based on secular concerns for what our social experiments with marriage have already won us.
I grew up with easy divorce. My parents threatened divorce three times during my childhood, and finally made it good when I was 24. Their divorce not only affects me today, but affects my children as well. I believe that a lot of my early views on marriage came from popular culture -- easy divorce and socially permissible casual sex. I remember thinking on my first wedding day that if it didn't work out, I could always get divorced...big surprise, that marriage ended in divorce 7 years and one child later. Understand that I do not *blame* popular culture for my decisions, but I recognise that some of my attitudes came from popular culture, and I bought it, hook, line and sinker.
Honestly, I don't think that gay marriage will do nearly the damage to the future face of marriage that divorce and casual sex has already had. But for heaven's sake, why experiment further with something we know has an absolutely profound effect on the well being of children?
I can guess how frustrating it must be to want something intensely and be denied it on what seems like trivial, bigoted, even hysterical reasons. I saw the pictures of the couples on the steps of the courthouse in San Francisco. No one can deny their obvious happiness. What we cannot picture is the faces of children one or two generations from now (not that we really have to wait that long) whose parents never understood marriage for what it ought to be -- a foundation of bedrock, never entered into lightly, nor violated or broken casually (or easily). I don't know very many people who see marriage that way anymore. My parents certainly didn't. Neither did my homosexual cousin, who "married" his partner 3 years ago, and is now long since "divorced".
I do have compassion for the impossible situation you are in. I just have more compassion for children who have no choice in the world they will grow up in. We will decide that for them. I choose to try to counter what has already crumbled the foundations of marriage, and to support parents in their struggle to raise children with healthy relationship modelling. Unfortunately, that includes asking homosexuals to stay out of the marriage arena. I am genuinely sorry that means pain for some. It's the best of a bad situation that I can come up with. But you know, it also means that I am probably even more of a pain in the ass to my friends who think divorce will solve their marital problems. For what that's worth.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
jeniwren, that reads like an argument against homosexual divorce. like heterosexual divorce, it would have a negative effect on society. but how does homosexual marraige have that effect?
or do you think that groups more likely to divorce shouldn't be allowed to marry. you know, like children of divorce, or people who've been divorced once already....
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think people who divorce should go through mandatory counseling, so that they can work through their issues and not repeat them. Their children desperately need counseling. Even the most amicable divorces end up affecting the kids in a negative fashion. Sometimes the kids recover (kids are amazingly resilient), but sometimes they don't. Often a school social worker/counselor can be of great help to parents and children when they are going through divorces, but people won't use them.
I think that not considering children's issues is one of the blackest things about marriage and divorce. Children DO change things. It is cruel to bring a child into the world and then ignore or downplay the effects YOUR decisions and actions have on his or her life.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right now, what are the stats on homosexuals being denied adoptive 'rights?'
Where I live, all of them.
Bad question for me, Scott, I live in Florida. Florida is the only state that specifically restricts homosexuals from adopting children, although people with histories of drug or alcohol abuse or even domestic violence can adopt in some circumstances. What's truly bizarre is that Florida allows gays to foster children.
The major case here is a gay couple who have fostered several problem kids and currently have five. One, Bert, was placed with them as an infant. He was diagnosed with HIV. After spending his life with the couple and his siblings, Bert, now 10 and no longer testing positive, is eligible for adoption, so Florida is trying to place him somewhere else. The men who cared for him the first 10 years of his life are simply not an option. (Not anecdotal, you can read about it and the continuing court case here: www.lethimstay.com)
What are the numbers on homosexual couples expressing a desire to adopt?
It's difficult to give you numbers since there's not a census of homosexuals that asks "Would you adopt?" There's no waiting list, since there's no point. An obvious counter question would be, is growing up without a parent of any kind better than growing up with gay parents?
[ February 25, 2004, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I mean, if Abby was a lesbian because she couldn't help it, that would be one thing and I'd be okay with it. But if she wanted to marry a girl and wouldn't go through that awkward dating crap just because she didn't feel like messing around with annoying boys, I'd feel like she'd be missing out on something in her life. It almost makes it too easy for girls and boys to avoid each other more and making important intimate connections. Hmmm.
Jenny, again, I'm sure you don't mean offense, but suggesting the above is really demeaning to me. I am not with Chris because I can't handle the frustration of dealing with a woman.
I will admit that allowing gay marriage will invariable open the closet doors all the wider. It will make it much more likely that your kids will have questions about families with two daddies or two mommies. I'd like to think that a good parent can deal with this "problem". And if parents are teaching their kids to be responsible, well adjusted people -- people who can learn to deal with others and work through differences -- then, as OSC put it, "the message of the hormones" will lead them into heterosexual marriages. And if you have a child for whom this message isn't so clear, well maybe you'll have to muster up the love and care necessary to guide them into whatever resolution is best for them. Wouldn't it be nice, if the answer turned out that they were undeniably homosexual, that they would have the option of fitting fully into society in a committed, legally recognized relationsihp, and maybe even raising a family?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
celia, it's an argument against messing with the definition of marriage -- the marriage of two men or two women IS a new thing. Until the past 15 years, it had never been done anywhere, anywhen. Making even such a small, seemingly insignificant change like this is cause for serious pause to something as fundemental to society as marriage.
It's also an argument for strengthening divorce laws. In other words, putting the binding part back into marriage that has been loosening and slipping away for the past 30 years.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl, I really didn't mean it the way it came off. I'm thinking of the things I see in middle school and high school - all the stupid crap girls do as faddish things. I'd have problems with Abby wanting to wear Britney Spears-type outfits and trying to act provocatively when she isn't ready for the responsibility of inciting desire, too.
You make some very good points, and you do so very gently. You are of course right, in that I'd want her to be loved and accepted in society regardless of whom she ended up choosing as a mate.
Really, you and I are not as far apart as you might think from the way we are posting at each other. I admire you and I don't know exactly why I'm finding myself responding somewhat adversarily to some of the things posted here. I'm surprised at some of the things welling up from inside me, and I am hashing out my own various issues here on the board. Your perspective and Geoff's, so far, are the ones keeping me grounded.
I wish I were not so shielded in my community - my few gay acquaintances/friends have been online for the most part, and not folks I know intimately in daily life. Ditto for people of different races from me. It makes it harder for me to know what comes off as offensive, and why. If I have hurt you in any way, I am really sorry. And if I hurt you in the future, make sure you tell me about it so I can learn to do better.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm against strenthening divorce laws. Even intelligent people make mistakes, one of them could be marrying the wrong person. But they should think first. Divorce should be a last resort. Divorce should be when you've tried conselling, you've tried compromise and you just can't get along... can't keep that connection. But of course divorces can be preventing if people THINK before they get married. Marriage is not something people should be casual about. The meaning has changed over thecenturies. It is more about commitment love and connection than ever! People should not marry because they want to have sex. Or marry someone just because of their looks...or some foolish things like that. They should be ready for the ups and downs of life
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gay marriage doesn't threaten the sanctity of my marriage, Tom. As you keep saying, only something I or my husband do could do that. I just don't think marriage describes the joining of two things that are already alike. I'm pretty sure it's used in the physical sciences to describe something different. I think a lifelong commitment between two people who have decided they are important to each other can be codified, and if a religion wishes to sanctify it, they are free to do so.
But I don't think the difference between men and women can be discarded. I think the difference between men and women is actually rather important to homosexuals as much as it is to heterosexuals.
Homosexual marriage doesn't harm the sanctity of my marriage, but I feel it endangers my position in society as a woman.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In other words, do you think that the term marriage refers to the blending of the yin and the yang, two different kinds of things? Like blending dark and light, wet and dry? Until the union of the two is a mix that could not have been otherwise without the two very different elements?
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the widow down the street needed help raising her two boys and couldn't find a decent replacement for their father, and my current wife consented, shouldn't I be able to take the widow and her family under my wing?
Sounds acceptable so far.
What about the poor widow's sexual needs? Who's going to take care of that?
Now even those claiming to be liberal-minded want to back off and re-think. They really do care who's playing the hornpipe with whom.
Shouldn't I be able to extend my employer's health care benefits to that poor widow? Insurance companies would scream.
Uncle Sam wouldn't be too happy either about the possibility of one tax-paying head of household harboring so many non-tax-payers.
See, it's all about sex and money.
We're not at all talking about loving, devoted fellas who want to hold hands in public.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka - Your last thought is the sort of concern discussions like this should be addressing.
You know, if we went back and edited out about half of this thread, it'd be a pretty decent debate (I won't comment on which posts should go, and whether or not mine should be among them ).
[ February 25, 2004, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
You want to make divorce harder? I say go for it. I don't think marriage should be the casual thing it has become for some.
We've talked before about gay marriage and children, and I understand what you have to say, though I disagree with it and do find its underlying assumptions offensive and wrong-headed. Last time this came up, I guess we agreed to disagree, so I have no illusions of changing your mind this time. I'm sure you could say the same about me.
The underlying assumptions that I find offensive are that, 1.) it's OK to deny my relationship legal status because there is the possibility that this social change might not be entirely to your liking. 2.) Two men (or two women) couldn't provide a loving home that could produce well adjusted children.
The part I find wrong headed is that you seem to assume that because so many straight people can't successfully maintain a marriage and care for kids, well, gays would end up doing it even worse. This logic seems so blatantly, obviously illogical to me that I don't know where to begin debating it. It seems like it should be self-evidentially a non-sequitur.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka - I'm confused, then. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. And I really want to know, because this seems to be an important and interesting point.
(edit because this thread moves too fast and I'm not addressing Karl)
posted
This isn't my usual thread and I'm very tempted to throw my hands up and walk away. I know nothing I say will change anyones opinion as well as I know nothing anyone else says will change mine.
That being said, I share KarlEd's thoughts on the simple illogicallity of a lot of these arguments. And I'll keep posting, if only to say, KarlEd, I support and agree with your point of view.
posted
I don't know how else to say it besides what I already said. But my view doesn't take into account the "Born Gay" doctrine.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Some people think that men and women are like carbon and oxygen and marriage is carbon monoxide. They can’t understand how anyone could think two carbon atoms or two oxygen atoms should be called “carbon monoxide.” It’s applying a label to a situation it doesn’t fit. It makes no sense.
Other people think that men and women are both hydrogen and marriage is diatomic hydrogen. They don’t understand why some people think that the union of two particular hydrogen atoms would change the definition of diatomic hydrogen. It’s drawing distinctions where there don’t need to be any. It makes no sense.
Once we (society as a whole) can get past repeating, “But it’s not carbon monoxide! How can you say that it is?!?” and “But I can’t see how this molecule of diatomic hydrogen can affect the molecular bonds between other models of diatomic hydrogen” we might actually get somewhere.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
).![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
