|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 21, 2020 9:32:55 GMT -8
The GOP Platform of 1856 included the following resolution: "Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism — Polygamy, and Slavery." www.ushistory.org/gop/convention_1856republicanplatform.htmIts clear to me that the Republicans of 1856, as it is with the Republicans of today, were influenced by their religious convictions when considering what political philosophies and legislation was best for the country. The 1856 Republicans quickly called out the biggest moral issues of the day (Polygamy and Slavery). They were the "Social Conservatives" of their day. It is fair to say that modern Republicans still call out religiously held moral issues, like Abortion. And I think it is fair to say that the modern GOP was reluctant to support the equivalence of Gay Marriage to traditional Heterosexual Marriage also because of widely held Religious convictions. While that position is now well in the minority and hardly even debated any more, I recall a common argument against Gay Marriage offered by some Republicans during the debate (and quickly dispatched as ludicrous or irrelevant by opponents) was the warning that without such limited definitions of marriage, other abnormal relationships, like polygamy, would soon be considered legitimate. So the link below that shows a city ready to recognize polygamous marriages should be of no surprise to anyone. And with the recent SCOTUS ruling in favor of LBGTQ rights, how will anyone be able to limit polygamous marriages, if challenged in court? somerville.wickedlocal.com/news/20200701/somerville-recognizes-polyamorous-domestic-partnershipsPerhaps the libertarian within us should care less how other people find fulfillment so long as it doesn't affect them personally, but the emotional damage done to the children of these relationships (as their needs are clearly secondary to the emotional fulfillment of the involved adults) will one day come back to haunt us. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Jul 21, 2020 20:08:22 GMT -8
The GOP Platform of 1856 included the following resolution: "Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism — Polygamy, and Slavery." www.ushistory.org/gop/convention_1856republicanplatform.htmIts clear to me that the Republicans of 1856, as it is with the Republicans of today, were influenced by their religious convictions when considering what political philosophies and legislation was best for the country. The 1856 Republicans quickly called out the biggest moral issues of the day (Polygamy and Slavery). They were the "Social Conservatives" of their day. It is fair to say that modern Republicans still call out religiously held moral issues, like Abortion. And I think it is fair to say that the modern GOP was reluctant to support the equivalence of Gay Marriage to traditional Heterosexual Marriage also because of widely held Religious convictions. While that position is now well in the minority and hardly even debated any more, I recall a common argument against Gay Marriage offered by some Republicans during the debate (and quickly dispatched as ludicrous or irrelevant by opponents) was the warning that without such limited definitions of marriage, other abnormal relationships, like polygamy, would soon be considered legitimate. So the link below that shows a city ready to recognize polygamous marriages should be of no surprise to anyone. And with the recent SCOTUS ruling in favor of LBGTQ rights, how will anyone be able to limit polygamous marriages, if challenged in court? somerville.wickedlocal.com/news/20200701/somerville-recognizes-polyamorous-domestic-partnershipsPerhaps the libertarian within us should care less how other people find fulfillment so long as it doesn't affect them personally, but the emotional damage done to the children of these relationships (as their needs are clearly secondary to the emotional fulfillment of the involved adults) will one day come back to haunt us. Is this a joke? Republicans lost any moral high ground (they thought they had) 3.5 years ago. Moral majority...hahaha. You guys went hook, line and sinker for a shyster. The same things you demonized people for....for years....you now excuse with "we didn't elect a choir boy"...nobody is buying anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Jul 21, 2020 20:32:19 GMT -8
The GOP Platform of 1856 included the following resolution: "Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism — Polygamy, and Slavery." www.ushistory.org/gop/convention_1856republicanplatform.htmIts clear to me that the Republicans of 1856, as it is with the Republicans of today, were influenced by their religious convictions when considering what political philosophies and legislation was best for the country. The 1856 Republicans quickly called out the biggest moral issues of the day (Polygamy and Slavery). They were the "Social Conservatives" of their day. It is fair to say that modern Republicans still call out religiously held moral issues, like Abortion. And I think it is fair to say that the modern GOP was reluctant to support the equivalence of Gay Marriage to traditional Heterosexual Marriage also because of widely held Religious convictions. While that position is now well in the minority and hardly even debated any more, I recall a common argument against Gay Marriage offered by some Republicans during the debate (and quickly dispatched as ludicrous or irrelevant by opponents) was the warning that without such limited definitions of marriage, other abnormal relationships, like polygamy, would soon be considered legitimate. So the link below that shows a city ready to recognize polygamous marriages should be of no surprise to anyone. And with the recent SCOTUS ruling in favor of LBGTQ rights, how will anyone be able to limit polygamous marriages, if challenged in court? somerville.wickedlocal.com/news/20200701/somerville-recognizes-polyamorous-domestic-partnershipsPerhaps the libertarian within us should care less how other people find fulfillment so long as it doesn't affect them personally, but the emotional damage done to the children of these relationships (as their needs are clearly secondary to the emotional fulfillment of the involved adults) will one day come back to haunt us. hmmm. Trump wished Ghislaine Maxwell "well" today. He hung out with her and Epstein back in the day. "Jeffrey is a fun guy to hang out with....likes em on the younger side"...that's your guy!! |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 22, 2020 4:07:14 GMT -8
The GOP Platform of 1856 included the following resolution: "Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism — Polygamy, and Slavery." www.ushistory.org/gop/convention_1856republicanplatform.htmIts clear to me that the Republicans of 1856, as it is with the Republicans of today, were influenced by their religious convictions when considering what political philosophies and legislation was best for the country. The 1856 Republicans quickly called out the biggest moral issues of the day (Polygamy and Slavery). They were the "Social Conservatives" of their day. It is fair to say that modern Republicans still call out religiously held moral issues, like Abortion. And I think it is fair to say that the modern GOP was reluctant to support the equivalence of Gay Marriage to traditional Heterosexual Marriage also because of widely held Religious convictions. While that position is now well in the minority and hardly even debated any more, I recall a common argument against Gay Marriage offered by some Republicans during the debate (and quickly dispatched as ludicrous or irrelevant by opponents) was the warning that without such limited definitions of marriage, other abnormal relationships, like polygamy, would soon be considered legitimate. So the link below that shows a city ready to recognize polygamous marriages should be of no surprise to anyone. And with the recent SCOTUS ruling in favor of LBGTQ rights, how will anyone be able to limit polygamous marriages, if challenged in court? somerville.wickedlocal.com/news/20200701/somerville-recognizes-polyamorous-domestic-partnershipsPerhaps the libertarian within us should care less how other people find fulfillment so long as it doesn't affect them personally, but the emotional damage done to the children of these relationships (as their needs are clearly secondary to the emotional fulfillment of the involved adults) will one day come back to haunt us. Is this a joke? Republicans lost any moral high ground (they thought they had) 3.5 years ago. Moral majority...hahaha. You guys went hook, line and sinker for a shyster. The same things you demonized people for....for years....you now excuse with "we didn't elect a choir boy"...nobody is buying anymore. Doesn't say much for you and the clueless leftists when Trump is the more reasonable one to pick from. Bag of rocks Nancy, the Commies Bernie and AOC, Corrupt and Demented Joe. Really? Trump is not a China loving, cop defunding, job killing, Constitution hating, racist Marxist and the Democrats are. Wish he was a choir boy too but Romney had his chance and we know how that worked out. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Jul 22, 2020 5:10:15 GMT -8
Is this a joke? Republicans lost any moral high ground (they thought they had) 3.5 years ago. Moral majority...hahaha. You guys went hook, line and sinker for a shyster. The same things you demonized people for....for years....you now excuse with "we didn't elect a choir boy"...nobody is buying anymore. Doesn't say much for you and the clueless leftists when Trump is the more reasonable one to pick from. Bag of rocks Nancy, the Commies Bernie and AOC, Corrupt and Demented Joe. Really? Trump is not a China loving, cop defunding, job killing, Constitution hating, racist Marxist and the Democrats are. Wish he was a choir boy too but Romney had his chance and we know how that worked out. Wow, do you even think about what you post anymore, or do you just go to Breitbart for talking points? "China loving" ...that's pretty funny. Seems like trump loved China when he praised the Chinese leader for his coronavirus response early on. How bout Ivanka's Chinese patents? Wow, you couldnt even find a MAGA hat that wasn't made in China. The darling store chains of the Right, like Walmart, had nearly 100% chinese product for years...including polluted farmed catfish, tilapia and shrimp. The right (and the left) love China when they can make money. They both hate China when it is politically convenient. How much Chinese product do you have in your house? I bet you've dumped it for ethical reasons...roll eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 22, 2020 5:42:22 GMT -8
Doesn't say much for you and the clueless leftists when Trump is the more reasonable one to pick from. Bag of rocks Nancy, the Commies Bernie and AOC, Corrupt and Demented Joe. Really? Trump is not a China loving, cop defunding, job killing, Constitution hating, racist Marxist and the Democrats are. Wish he was a choir boy too but Romney had his chance and we know how that worked out. Wow, do you even think about what you post anymore, or do you just go to Breitbart for talking points? "China loving" ...that's pretty funny. Seems like trump loved China when he praised the Chinese leader for his coronavirus response early on. How bout Ivanka's Chinese patents? Wow, you couldnt even find a MAGA hat that wasn't made in China. The darling store chains of the Right, like Walmart, had nearly 100% chinese product for years...including polluted farmed catfish, tilapia and shrimp. The right (and the left) love China when they can make money. They both hate China when it is politically convenient. How much Chinese product do you have in your house? I bet you've dumped it for ethical reasons...roll eyes. Fortunately, your delusions are only your delusions. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Jul 22, 2020 6:21:54 GMT -8
Wow, do you even think about what you post anymore, or do you just go to Breitbart for talking points? "China loving" ...that's pretty funny. Seems like trump loved China when he praised the Chinese leader for his coronavirus response early on. How bout Ivanka's Chinese patents? Wow, you couldnt even find a MAGA hat that wasn't made in China. The darling store chains of the Right, like Walmart, had nearly 100% chinese product for years...including polluted farmed catfish, tilapia and shrimp. The right (and the left) love China when they can make money. They both hate China when it is politically convenient. How much Chinese product do you have in your house? I bet you've dumped it for ethical reasons...roll eyes. Fortunately, your delusions are only your delusions. I think your echo chamber is calling you. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 22, 2020 7:30:51 GMT -8
I think your echo chamber is calling you. Speaking of echo chamber, what does the claim of racist police brutality have to do with forwarding Marxist policies? See the comments from the LA Teachers Union, every Antifa and BLM Leader on record, Almost every Democrat Pol you hear from? etc? Please enlighten us! |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Jul 22, 2020 9:21:30 GMT -8
I think your echo chamber is calling you. Speaking of echo chamber, what does the claim of racist police brutality have to do with forwarding Marxist policies? See the comments from the LA Teachers Union, every Antifa and BLM Leader on record, Almost every Democrat Pol you hear from? etc? Please enlighten us! Just to remind you, I am posting my own personal opinions and observations. I do not represent every Democrat Pol. I am not an expert on the LA teachers Union. So you can continue talking points, but most sound just like..... well....talking points. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Jul 22, 2020 10:51:46 GMT -8
Perhaps the libertarian within us should care less how other people find fulfillment so long as it doesn't affect them personally, but the emotional damage done to the children of these relationships (as their needs are clearly secondary to the emotional fulfillment of the involved adults) will one day come back to haunt us. The exact line of reasoning you used here can be said of kids being raised be single mothers. The statistics are extremely clear on kids raised by single mothers, and are arguably worse that the statistics of kids raised in polygynous (not polyandrous) families. With the damage done to children being potentially worse in single mother families than polygynous families, and your opposition to polygynous families being lawful, do you also believe single mothers raising kids should likewise be unlawful? Why or why not? |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 22, 2020 11:25:09 GMT -8
Perhaps the libertarian within us should care less how other people find fulfillment so long as it doesn't affect them personally, but the emotional damage done to the children of these relationships (as their needs are clearly secondary to the emotional fulfillment of the involved adults) will one day come back to haunt us. The exact line of reasoning you used here can be said of kids being raised be single mothers. The statistics are extremely clear on kids raised by single mothers, and are arguably worse that the statistics of kids raised in polygynous (not polyandrous) families. With the damage done to children being potentially worse in single mother families than polygynous families, and your opposition to polygynous families being unlawful, do you also believe single mothers raising kids should likewise be unlawful? Why or why not? The question of being "lawful" is a fait acompli in the city noted and, given the recent Supreme Court ruling, relatively assured to be legal were challenged by the individuals seeking such an arrangement. Polygamy is/was deemed unlawful by the majority, I gather, for any number of reasons ranging from both the practical to the moral. The idea of a harem is, as mentioned in the 1856 Platform, barbarous. On a legal basis, how does on deal with community property rights, survivor benefits, etc., in that environment? Having more than two parties in a union, the complexity would soon be problematic. And while the children in that situation could still have a father figure more available to them than children of a single mother, for example, the probable psychological impact on the children (being part of jealousy, competition, favoritism, increased focus on sexuality (lets face it, polygamy is not about having extra hands to able to work the farm  ), etc.) is also problematic for their future healthy emotional relationships. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Jul 22, 2020 12:08:53 GMT -8
The exact line of reasoning you used here can be said of kids being raised be single mothers. The statistics are extremely clear on kids raised by single mothers, and are arguably worse that the statistics of kids raised in polygynous (not polyandrous) families. With the damage done to children being potentially worse in single mother families than polygynous families, and your opposition to polygynous families being unlawful, do you also believe single mothers raising kids should likewise be unlawful? Why or why not? The question of being "lawful" is a fait acompli in the city noted and, given the recent Supreme Court ruling, relatively assured to be legal were challenged by the individuals seeking such an arrangement. Polygamy is/was deemed unlawful by the majority, I gather, for any number of reasons ranging from both the practical to the moral. The idea of a harem is, as mentioned in the 1856 Platform, barbarous. On a legal basis, how does on deal with community property rights, survivor benefits, etc., in that environment? Having more than two parties in a union, the complexity would soon be problematic. And while the children in that situation could still have a father figure more available to them than children of a single mother, for example, the probable psychological impact on the children (being part of jealousy, competition, favoritism, increased focus on sexuality (lets face it, polygamy is not about having extra hands to able to work the farm ), etc.) is also problematic for their future healthy emotional relationships. There is some history as to why that plank appeared on the 1856 GOP platform and it isn’t as noble as you’d like to believe. Did you know a few years before that when the Mormons were concentrated in Missouri, the Governor of Missouri issued an Extermination Order to kill every Mormon in the state? Not only did the state of Missouri raise a militia to do it, they seized Mormon-owned farms and property to pay for the militia tasked with killing them off or driving them from the state. It wasn’t just men being killed. There was one incident called the Haun’s Mill Massacre where the militia rode in to town and killed everyone. Those that surrendered were taken in to custody and executed. Three kids aged 10, 9, and 7 years old had hid in the blacksmith shop under the bellow. After the town had been pacified, some militia members searched around and found the three children. All three children were shot and killed as per the Missouri Governor’s executive order. Anyway, when news broke about what Missouri was doing to Mormons, the Mormons picked up and fled to Illinois which was the center of where the GOP was forming. Some Illinois politicians began wanting to do the same thing as Missouri and the Mormons fled to Utah which was outside of the US at the time. The appearance of that plank in the 1856 platform wasn’t because the GOP was concerned about the wellbeing of Mormon kids. That said, you dodged my question about single mother families being unlawful if your concerns is for the children’s well-being. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 22, 2020 12:25:27 GMT -8
The question of being "lawful" is a fait acompli in the city noted and, given the recent Supreme Court ruling, relatively assured to be legal were challenged by the individuals seeking such an arrangement. Polygamy is/was deemed unlawful by the majority, I gather, for any number of reasons ranging from both the practical to the moral. The idea of a harem is, as mentioned in the 1856 Platform, barbarous. On a legal basis, how does on deal with community property rights, survivor benefits, etc., in that environment? Having more than two parties in a union, the complexity would soon be problematic. And while the children in that situation could still have a father figure more available to them than children of a single mother, for example, the probable psychological impact on the children (being part of jealousy, competition, favoritism, increased focus on sexuality (lets face it, polygamy is not about having extra hands to able to work the farm ), etc.) is also problematic for their future healthy emotional relationships. There is some history as to why that plank appeared on the 1856 GOP platform and it isn’t as noble as you’d like to believe. Did you know a few years before that when the Mormons were concentrated in Missouri, the Governor of Missouri issued an Extermination Order to kill every Mormon in the state? Not only did the state of Missouri raise a militia to do it, they seized Mormon-owned farms and property to pay for the militia tasked with killing them off or driving them from the state. It wasn’t just men being killed. There was one incident called the Haun’s Mill Massacre where the militia rode in to town and killed everyone. Those that surrendered were taken in to custody and executed. Three kids aged 10, 9, and 7 years old had hid in the blacksmith shop under the bellow. After the town had been pacified, some militia members searched around and found the three children. All three children were shot and killed as per the Missouri Governor’s executive order. Anyway, when news broke about what Missouri was doing to Mormons, the Mormons picked up and fled to Illinois which was the center of where the GOP was forming. Some Illinois politicians began wanting to do the same thing as Missouri and the Mormons fled to Utah which was outside of the US at the time. The appearance of that plank in the 1856 platform wasn’t because the GOP was concerned about the wellbeing of Mormon kids. That said, you dodged my question about single mother families being unlawful if your concerns is for the children’s well-being. Not really. As I said, Polygamy had/has different and additional issues beyond what is deemed best for the children. And the challenges for the children in either situation are different. Are two parent families generally better for children than a single mother/parent family? Statistics show the results are in as yes. And while two parents vs one may be better, it is not a reason to outlaw the other. No doubt it was an anti-Mormon plank as Mormons were the only ones pushing Polygamy in that day. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Jul 22, 2020 12:53:41 GMT -8
Not really. As I said, Polygamy had/has different and additional issues beyond what is deemed best for the children. And the challenges for the children in either situation are different. Are two parent families generally better for children than a single mother/parent family? Statistics show the results are in as yes. And while two parents vs one may be better, it is not a reason to outlaw the other. No doubt it was an anti-Mormon plank as Mormons were the only ones pushing Polygamy in that day. There are a lot of safeguards in place in our society to protect children here in the US. I can’t wrap my head around why anyone would want more than one wife, but if they do I’d much rather society not ostracize them so those same safeguards can catch abuse in those families too. There is also a strong correlation between poverty and poor outcomes for the children of polygynous families. That is not only here in the US, but everywhere that polygyny exists. It is easier to provide for your family if you’re allowed into society, and it seems money cures almost everything. I’m for allowing polygynous families for the exact reason you oppose them. I think they’re going to exist anyway. A century and a half of laws hasn’t stopped the practice. I want those families allowed into society for the good of the kids. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 22, 2020 13:45:25 GMT -8
Not really. As I said, Polygamy had/has different and additional issues beyond what is deemed best for the children. And the challenges for the children in either situation are different. Are two parent families generally better for children than a single mother/parent family? Statistics show the results are in as yes. And while two parents vs one may be better, it is not a reason to outlaw the other. No doubt it was an anti-Mormon plank as Mormons were the only ones pushing Polygamy in that day. There are a lot of safeguards in place in our society to protect children here in the US. I can’t wrap my head around why anyone would want more than one wife, but if they do I’d much rather society not ostracize them so those same safeguards can catch abuse in those families too. There is also a strong correlation between poverty and poor outcomes for the children of polygynous families. That is not only here in the US, but everywhere that polygyny exists. It is easier to provide for your family if you’re allowed into society, and it seems money cures almost everything. I’m for allowing polygynous families for the exact reason you oppose them. I think they’re going to exist anyway. A century and a half of laws hasn’t stopped the practice. I want those families allowed into society for the good of the kids. I often said then to those seeking equivalency for Gay Marriage to traditional single pair Heterosexual Marriage that they should get in line behind the Polygamists. It was a bit of hyperbole as no one really was advocating for it but, to some level, they were in line first and for a long time. The question was then "How can you allow one type of marriage yet ban another type and still be fair to all US Citizens?". The answer was that we had an example for all to see (Polygamy) and that ban had little or no opposition. Now, with Gay Marriage legalized, how does one ban Polygamous marriage, even if desired only by a super small fraction of society? I don't think one can. As I am now seeing and hearing things that I would have never expected to see or hear out of my fellow Americans (~wanting to limit free speech, advocating for Marxist policies, certain lawlessness to be allowed and hyper enforcement for others, allowing the killing of live birthed babies, advocating for objectively racist policies, etc.), so why not allow harems too? A brave new world! |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Jul 22, 2020 14:12:13 GMT -8
Not really. As I said, Polygamy had/has different and additional issues beyond what is deemed best for the children. And the challenges for the children in either situation are different. Are two parent families generally better for children than a single mother/parent family? Statistics show the results are in as yes. And while two parents vs one may be better, it is not a reason to outlaw the other. No doubt it was an anti-Mormon plank as Mormons were the only ones pushing Polygamy in that day. There are a lot of safeguards in place in our society to protect children here in the US. I can’t wrap my head around why anyone would want more than one wife, but if they do I’d much rather society not ostracize them so those same safeguards can catch abuse in those families too. There is also a strong correlation between poverty and poor outcomes for the children of polygynous families. That is not only here in the US, but everywhere that polygyny exists. It is easier to provide for your family if you’re allowed into society, and it seems money cures almost everything. I’m for allowing polygynous families for the exact reason you oppose them. I think they’re going to exist anyway. A century and a half of laws hasn’t stopped the practice. I want those families allowed into society for the good of the kids. Agree with you here. The only way multiple wives work is the Jeffs model..young and manageable. If I had 2 of mine, I'd get my ass kicked even more than it already does!! |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Jul 22, 2020 16:32:40 GMT -8
I am now seeing and hearing things that I would have never expected to see or hear out of my fellow Americans (~wanting to limit free speech, advocating for Marxist policies, certain lawlessness to be allowed and hyper enforcement for others, allowing the killing of live birthed babies, advocating for objectively racist policies, etc.), so why not allow harems too? A brave new world! Americans aren’t a different breed of people. All of the things you just mentioned have been tried here before, but up until now the safeguards have held. The safeguards will eventually fail. It could be this time, or the next, or the one after that. Nothing lasts forever. Speaking of how things are different now, I came across a video the other day I think you’ll appreciate. Uwphoto will probably appreciate it too, but AztecRyan will say “hey, that’s me!” www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Jul 22, 2020 20:17:47 GMT -8
I am now seeing and hearing things that I would have never expected to see or hear out of my fellow Americans (~wanting to limit free speech, advocating for Marxist policies, certain lawlessness to be allowed and hyper enforcement for others, allowing the killing of live birthed babies, advocating for objectively racist policies, etc.), so why not allow harems too? A brave new world! Americans aren’t a different breed of people. All of the things you just mentioned have been tried here before, but up until now the safeguards have held. The safeguards will eventually fail. It could be this time, or the next, or the one after that. Nothing lasts forever. Speaking of how things are different now, I came across a video the other day I think you’ll appreciate. Uwphoto will probably appreciate it too, but AztecRyan will say “hey, that’s me!” www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRghmm. I can't relate to that video. it gives me a headache. I'm an old hippie boomer, people from my era were much more chill than that. |
|
), etc.) is also problematic for their future healthy emotional relationships.