Jump to content


Photo

entering gay partners


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
13 replies to this topic

#1 TracyS

TracyS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

Posted 11 February 2007 - 09:04 AM

Roots magic does not allow entering spouses of the same sex, even as an overide. If we are going to record family history fully, this really needs to be an option as there are many same sex couples raising families.

#2 Jim Belanger

Jim Belanger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 658 posts

Posted 11 February 2007 - 09:20 AM

Search past topics and wishes. You will find a ton of info and comments on this subject.
JIM.B.NH

#3 kbens0n

kbens0n

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2623 posts

Posted 11 February 2007 - 10:19 AM

http://www.rootsmagi...amp;#entry11910
--
-- "GENEALOGY, n. An account of one's descent from an ancestor who did not particularly care to trace his own." - Ambrose Bierce
--
--ΤΏΤ--
K e V i N

#4 slrawlins

slrawlins

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 11 February 2007 - 11:22 AM

This subject has come up in many other forums. The bottom line is that this software is concerned with genealogy -- it deals with "genes". One member of a female gay couple may transmit genetic inheretance to a child, but the biological father is someone else. Male gay couples of course do not transmit inheretance. I suggest that social rather than genetic relationships be handled in notes.

#5 craigg

craigg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46 posts

Posted 11 February 2007 - 11:37 AM

Please note that the originator of this thread, specifically siad "family history" not geneology. RootsMagic is able to support both activities and should continue to do that.

#6 landbrake

landbrake

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 341 posts

Posted 11 February 2007 - 07:36 PM

Since this is the "wish list" might I be permitted a couple of wishes?

1) I wish that people would look in the archives before starting a topic that has been beaten to death many times over, and only re-address it if they have something new to add to the subject. Given today's "politically correct" and morally relativistic climate, it could safely be assumed that this subject, in particular, will not be a new one. It only takes a few seconds to find a plethora of comments on this forum, both for and against the concept. A simple reiteration of the request really doesn't add anything new... it only tempts people to start thrashing out the same old arguments again.

2) I wish that, if people strongly desire to record aberrant relationships, that they find ways to do so without requiring that everyone else agree to the "legitimacy" of these relationships by insisting that the software explicitly support them. The human race is able to come up with an infinite number of implausible interconnections between people, and just because one of them is (temporarily I hope) gaining an alarming degree of social acceptance, does not make it any better than any of the myriad of other possible relationships. Thus, once you open the door to "same sex" partnerships, you have no legitimate way to deny that a genealogy program should explicitly support all the others... something that would be nearly impossible and would probably be disgusting to even those who have no problem with the type of relationships under current consideration. As far as finding alternate ways to enter "non-traditional" arrangements like this: Alfred has very kindly (several times) described methods for doing so. If you are determined to enter them, you can use his method without enforcing a repugnant moral position on everyone else. Isn't that fair and reasonable?

Regards,

#7 Ludlow Bay

Ludlow Bay

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 784 posts

Posted 11 February 2007 - 09:54 PM

QUOTE(landbrake @ Feb 11 2007, 06:36 PM) View Post

Since this is the "wish list" might I be permitted a couple of wishes?

1) I wish that people would look in the archives before starting a topic that has been beaten to death many times over, and only re-address it if they have something new to add to the subject. Given today's "politically correct" and morally relativistic climate, it could safely be assumed that this subject, in particular, will not be a new one. It only takes a few seconds to find a plethora of comments on this forum, both for and against the concept. A simple reiteration of the request really doesn't add anything new... it only tempts people to start thrashing out the same old arguments again.

2) I wish that, if people strongly desire to record aberrant relationships, that they find ways to do so without requiring that everyone else agree to the "legitimacy" of these relationships by insisting that the software explicitly support them. The human race is able to come up with an infinite number of implausible interconnections between people, and just because one of them is (temporarily I hope) gaining an alarming degree of social acceptance, does not make it any better than any of the myriad of other possible relationships. Thus, once you open the door to "same sex" partnerships, you have no legitimate way to deny that a genealogy program should explicitly support all the others... something that would be nearly impossible and would probably be disgusting to even those who have no problem with the type of relationships under current consideration. As far as finding alternate ways to enter "non-traditional" arrangements like this: Alfred has very kindly (several times) described methods for doing so. If you are determined to enter them, you can use his method without enforcing a repugnant moral position on everyone else. Isn't that fair and reasonable?

Regards,


What seems "fair and reasonable" is that everyone be given their voice, without fear of being squelched by those who happen to disagree.

#8 kbens0n

kbens0n

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2623 posts

Posted 11 February 2007 - 10:18 PM

QUOTE(Ludlow Bay @ Feb 11 2007, 10:54 PM) View Post

What seems "fair and reasonable" is that everyone be given their voice, without fear of being squelched by those who happen to disagree.

Yes, this is a new user (to the forum) who deserves to be given "much" slack -and- the same courteous help that others here expect. Dave, I'm sure you don't want to alienate anyone here who might possibly become a supporter of "your wish" for Place List changes! Besides that, from what you've said (here and in past threads)... I am beginning to wonder how rooted in reality you are? What "indications" might lead you to believe that the "present" state of this world would be "temporary"? Open your eyes, loosen up and don't feel "threatened"! cool.gif

--
-- "GENEALOGY, n. An account of one's descent from an ancestor who did not particularly care to trace his own." - Ambrose Bierce
--
--ΤΏΤ--
K e V i N

#9 landbrake

landbrake

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 341 posts

Posted 11 February 2007 - 10:30 PM

QUOTE(Ludlow Bay @ Feb 11 2007, 10:54 PM) View Post

What seems "fair and reasonable" is that everyone be given their voice, without fear of being squelched by those who happen to disagree.


I'm not trying to "squelch" anyone.... but how many times does the same topic need to be requested/debated/argued/counter-argued/dissected/etc., especially when nothing new ever seems to be coming out about it? If everyone needs to have their opinion heard about it, why not just have a vote or some such thing? Not that it would be binding on Bruce, obviously, but at least then everyone (until new people come on board... so maybe the vote needs to be taken on a regular schedule) could at least feel they've had their views represented.

I understand that there are many other topics that keep recurring besides this one, but at least with the majority of them people are attempting to add a new perspective or new information about them. I just haven't seen anything new on this topic for the last couple of years. Probably it bothers me more than other topics since I find the whole issue so unpleasant, but I'm really not trying to be unfair, so I apologize if I came across that way.

Regards,

#10 landbrake

landbrake

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 341 posts

Posted 11 February 2007 - 10:45 PM

QUOTE(kbens0n @ Feb 11 2007, 11:18 PM) View Post

Yes, this is a new user (to the forum) who deserves to be given "much" slack -and- the same courteous help that others here expect. Dave, I'm sure you don't want to alienate anyone here who might possibly become a supporter of "your wish" for Place List changes! Besides that, from what you've said (here and in past threads)... I am beginning to wonder how rooted in reality you are? What "indications" might lead you to believe that the "present" state of this world would be "temporary"? Open your eyes, loosen up and don't feel "threatened"! cool.gif


I cannot help but feel "threatened" by something that I believe is dangerous to my family and my society, just as I feel threatened by rising drug use, gang violence, etc. I would also resist any and all effort to legitimize those behaviors.

As to reality, it is that a number of cultures throughout history have accepted, to some degree, homosexuality as a "norm" (I'm thinking specifically of ancient Greece and, to a lesser extent, Rome, but also some early Asian and pre-colonization African kingdoms)... all of these cultures have disappeared, while the traditional concept of marriage has endured throughout all of human history. So while I do not know how long the current trend will last (I didn't say that it was temporary; just that I hope it is) it's my firm belief that it will eventually be reversed.

OK, now that I've gotten that off my chest, I feel much looser now! And eyes are still wide open, though getting a bit tired as it's getting near midnight here! wink.gif

All the best to you!

#11 Laura

Laura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3380 posts

Posted 12 February 2007 - 02:17 AM

Hi Tracy,

Go to http://www.rootsmagi...?showtopic=2330 and look for Alfred's post.

As you can see this subject is highly emotionally charged for some people.

Please don't take it personally, and continue to post any questions or wishes you might have.

Laura
Laura

The following was overheard at a recent high society party...
"My ancestry goes all the way back to Alexander the Great," said one lady. She then turned to a second woman and asked, "How far does your family go back?"
"I don't know," was the reply. "All of our records were lost in the flood."
-on various web sites-

#12 pwalker

pwalker

    Member

  • Validating
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 12 February 2007 - 10:17 AM

I would like to interject a different (and morally neutral) point to this highly charged debate (and to the Rootsmagic developers).

Software is a tool. Period. In the case of genealogy software it is a tool that allows us to more easily store and collate facts and information about individuals as we collect it. Ideally, NO software program should ever dictate, restrain or effect the data itself.

As an example, imagine writing a letter (or worse yet, a book) with a pen that only had a limited dictionary programmed into it and would only write words contained in that dictionary! Would you find that acceptable?
Unfortunately, due to programming limitations, most programs will get in your way at least some of the time. Anyone who has ever tried to do a complex document in Microsoft Word knows this. The measure of a good program, however, is that this happens infrequently or at least in non-critical ways. The goal of most programmers, however, should be to REDUCE these intrusions or limitations not add to them.

Additionally, most programs contain entry or validation features that might make choices for us to speed and simplify entry. These are "helpful" aids but should be overridable. For those who want to bring up validation rules (rules that force certain formats or data in certain fields) as an retaliation to this point, let me remind you that darn little genealogy data is standardizable (ex. dates, place names, names, spellings etc.) Genealogist should NEVER have to change the facts just because a program won't let them enter the information AS FOUND. This goes for field length and data type restrictions. Would any of us want to go back to the the "good ole days" when date fields only accepted regular dates with no qualifiers?

When I first added a marriage and discovered that Rootsmagic limited my choices to persons of the opposite sex I was FURIOUS!. Not because I have any same-sex couples (that I know of) mind, but because a $29 piece of software was telling me what to do with no options for override. No, uhuhh. I got just as mad when I tried to enter a very long place name and discovered the field wasn't long enough. Remember folks, overrides to a validation or warning rule are completely unobtrusive. They appear only when questionable or conflicting data is entered and, as such, cost little to include in the programming.

I stay with Rootsmagic despite these limitations because it is an otherwise great program with a great deal of potential. My hope for future development is that these restrictions will be resolved one by one.

I leave you with the National Genealogical Society's Standards of Sound Genealogical Research and Use of Technology in Genealogical Research:
* Avoid misleading other researchers by either intentionally or carelessly distributing or publishing inaccurate information
* Do not accept uncritically the ability of software to format, number, import, modify, check, chart or report their data, and therefore carefully evaluate any resulting product.
* Learn the capabilities and limits of their equipment and software, and use them only when they are the most appropriate tools for a purpose.

Respectfully to all, Pat

Special note to Laura, thank you for your calm words to Tracy. I'm pretty sure she/he didn't expect such feedback :-)

#13 TracyS

TracyS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

Posted 12 February 2007 - 12:19 PM

I am not offended by any of the responses, I just want to be able to enter accurate information. I do not need this option at this point in my family research, but I did just find a niece who married an uncle. Pat said it perfectly, the object is to enter information as accurately as possible, and no program should limit that. I do hope that any future versions of the program will take that into account.

I'm sorry about repeating an old topic. I'm new to this forum, this program, and to family research itself. Thanks to everyone who has provided links to earlier discussions.

Tracy

#14 pwalker

pwalker

    Member

  • Validating
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 12 February 2007 - 01:29 PM

And on a humerous note:

Hmmmm... I'm thinking that a post (mine) that goes on and on about the merits of data integrety shouldn't have had so many typos. Chalk that up to being in a rush and praise Invision for the edit feature.

Pat