Jump to content


Photo

same sex couples

same-sex couples

  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 jamesamacko

jamesamacko

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 21 June 2018 - 02:45 PM

I know this topic has been brought up before.  I understand how to change the spouses to partner under husbands and wife labels.   As a married person, I go by husband to my husband. Partner is just kind of rude to us.  but, maybe you can change that for ver. 8.    Here is my problem still.  

 

After changing both spouses to "partner".  If you go into any childs profile by these "partners"  and clicking on Parents names thatit pulls up a menu on the right side, under Parents you get  Father:  (name)  and under that you get Mother: (name)    How do I change this to both being "father"?  My son should not have to see the lack of intolerance by rootsmagic.    



#2 robertjacobs0

robertjacobs0

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 193 posts

Posted 21 June 2018 - 05:11 PM

RootsMagic's paradigm, like that of most of the genealogy programs, is set up to record biological parenthood; in that sense, neither you nor your husband is the child's mother.

 

Some people are more interested in family history than "genealogy" in its strict meaning. For them, adopted children, step-children and waifs off the street who are part of the family unit are considered to the the offspring of the parents, whatever the biological circumstances. That's clearly your family's category.

 

It's only been two years since the U.S. Supreme Court held that all the states must recognize same-sex marrriages; RootsMagic7, and FamilyHistory6 are both older than that. I don't know whether Legacy9 accommodates terminology changes to suit contemporary conditions. Indeed, the amazing diversity of human relationships suggests that the flexibility for which you argue will have to be a feature of genealogy/family history programs in the future: wife, husband, lover, partner, significant other, boyfriend, girlfriend, main squeeze, and grumpy old curmudgeon (that's me). All have to be accommodated.

 

All good wishes.



#3 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 7780 posts

Posted 22 June 2018 - 01:34 PM

RM7 was released before same-sex marriages were legalized. That is why there was only a Partner option. It is on the development list to update the spouse labels. For now mark them partners and add a note in the marriage. Then you can search for anyone in the database you will need to change the labels for later.


Renee
RootsMagic

#4 SomebodySmart

SomebodySmart

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 63 posts

Posted 20 July 2018 - 07:48 AM

Do not be bullied either way. Software publishers have the same rights as newspaper publishers. Your company has a right  to reject same-sex unions, same as FamilySearch; to accept same-sex unions and call them marriages; or to give the user the option, similar to the option of showing Mormon temple work under file options.



#5 robertjacobs0

robertjacobs0

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 193 posts

Posted 20 July 2018 - 08:03 AM

How would software "reject" a same-sex union which exists in reality?



#6 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 7780 posts

Posted 20 July 2018 - 09:46 AM

Do not be bullied either way. Software publishers have the same rights as newspaper publishers. Your company has a right  to reject same-sex unions, same as FamilySearch; to accept same-sex unions and call them marriages; or to give the user the option, similar to the option of showing Mormon temple work under file options.

 

RootsMagic will support individuals that want to record their family records as they understand them. 

 

FamilySearch recently announced they will be adding same-sex marriage support by 2019. It is under development right now. Accuracy in record keeping is extremely important to their mission of recording a book of humankind. The current system encourages confusion, making same-sex couples record one person of the same-sex the wrong sex. With advancement in technology and sophisticated programming families will be recorded as understood, which in turn supports which ordinances qualify for sealings. 

 

None of us will be considered "good keepers of the family records" if we use judgement's editing pen throughout it.


Renee
RootsMagic

#7 robertjacobs0

robertjacobs0

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 193 posts

Posted 20 July 2018 - 05:31 PM

Well said, Renee.



#8 SomebodySmart

SomebodySmart

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 63 posts

Posted Yesterday, 02:50 PM

The idea of civil unions was that they would legally be the same as marriages, thereby eliminating much of the legal disadvantage, while still expressing superiority to marriages, expressing disapproval, or jamesamacko said, being "just kind of rude". It also didn't work because the federal government did not recognize civil unions at all, even when the courts struck down parts of DOMA.

 

A lot of information is documented through RootsMagic software. To express that a man divorced his wife and married another woman does not express approval.

 

One option I like is to use quotation marks as "married" and "husband" or using the modifier, "so-called" in front to avoid expressing approval.

 

The fact that the event happened, like a man joining the priesthood, is an important clue to future researchers that it is unlikely he married a woman during that time period that he was under that vow. My aunt lives in a convent, which tells researchers her occupation and how many children she has: Nun and none.



#9 mjashby

mjashby

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts

Posted Today, 02:52 AM

@SomebodySmart

 

I'm sorry but I do not follow your logic.

 

 - The mere fact that someone was resident in a Convent does not render them incapable of having children or mean that they were celibate Nuns.

 - It does not mean that they were never previously married (in the earthly sense), or that they didn't have a physical relationship that produced children prior to entering a Covent, or indeed after becoming resident in a Convent.

 

There are historical; and modern day, examples of women entering convents after widowhood or some other significant life event for example, e.g. the birth of an illegitimate child, and also of Convent 'residents' who were not Nuns or training to be so, e.g. expectant single mothers.  Similarly, there are documented cases of women leaving convents, marrying and having families.

 

I would accept that the nature of the religious calling leads to some probability that the majority of Nuns have not borne children, but that is a conclusion (assumption?) rather than a proven Fact.

 

Would you leap to the same conclusion about a Catholic Priest, i.e. that he had never had children, or another life, or that all Priests, Nuns etc. of whatever religion were invariably 'good' people?  Both history and current news suggests very differently.


MJA

"A Mac User with Windows Tendencies"