Jump to content


Photo

Sex of Spouse


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Sleferson

Sleferson

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6 posts

Posted 14 September 2005 - 12:23 PM

[COLOR=blue][SIZE=7][FONT=Arial] I have asked before, but here's another wish not granted. I would like to be able to choose the sex of the spouse, rather than have the program decide for me. I know this is a controversial topic, but the fact is, I have a male cousin with a male partner, and the program will not allow me to enter him. We can choose the sex of all other people we enter; it can't be difficult to enable that feature for the spouse.

Sue

#2 landbrake

landbrake

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 341 posts

Posted 14 September 2005 - 04:53 PM

QUOTE(Sleferson @ Sep 14 2005, 01:23 PM)
[COLOR=blue][SIZE=7][FONT=Arial]  I have asked before, but here's another wish not granted.  I would like to be able to choose the sex of the spouse, rather than have the program decide for me.  I know this is a controversial topic, but the fact is, I have a male cousin with a male partner, and the program will not allow me to enter him.  We can choose the sex of all other people we enter; it can't be difficult to enable that feature for the spouse.

Sue

View Post



This topic has been debated frequently, and sometimes rancorously (search the forum history). There are many of us, like myself, who are vigorously opposed to such a change for reasons explained at some length in prior postings.

I don't believe that allowing same-sex partners would advance at all the study and research of genealogy; rather it would simply advance the current fad in political correctness in which it is now "cool" to flaunt what the whole of human history has taught is morally wrong.

I don't have any desire to get into any more "shouting matches" over this, but neither will I back down on taking a stand (as many times as may be necessary) for retaining what is morally correct insofar as RM is currently written.

Best regards.

#3 Guest_craigg_*

Guest_craigg_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 September 2005 - 05:25 PM

My understanding is that genealogy and family history are about facts and relationships, not moral values.
Get off your high horse.

#4 landbrake

landbrake

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 341 posts

Posted 14 September 2005 - 06:42 PM

QUOTE(craigg @ Sep 14 2005, 06:25 PM)
My understanding is that genealogy and family history are about facts and relationships, not moral values.
Get off your high horse.

View Post



Sigh......!

So if your cousin was having an incestuous relationship with his 4 year old, I presume you would want to include that too? Remember, no moral judgements allowed! And if great uncle Joe announced he was marrying his dog, RM should have a place for species of spouse? Why not, since we can't have an allowance for moral judgements?

The argument against moral judgements is, in fact, entirely spurious. Everyone makes moral judgements; it's simply that if you disagree with mine that you would choose to make this argument. I'd be willing to bet a fairly large amount (if I were a gambler!) that you never accuse anyone of inappropriate moralizing when their viewpoint happens to agree with yours.

Regards,


#5 Guest_Guest_Dick_*_*

Guest_Guest_Dick_*_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 September 2005 - 09:56 PM

What is wrong with defining your own individual fact?

Call it what ever you want, such as Gay Partner. Use the description field to put the name in.

You can make all the facts you want, one for each occasion.

The only thing you cannot do is make it a Family Fact. That requires one partnet of each sex.

Remember, this is a genealogy program. True it has lots of extras beyond pure genealogy, but genealogy is the main purpose for this program.

The line between genealogy (pure sense) and family history is blurred. Genealogy is the study of "blood lines". This is now being proven and disproven by DNA for lines we thought were perfect.

#6 Sleferson

Sleferson

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6 posts

Posted 16 September 2005 - 11:05 AM

I didn't intend to start a fight; I only wish to have the option of choosing a spousal sex for a cousin in my family in a long-term partnership with someone of the same sex. I certainly don't think an incestuous relationship falls under the same umbrella. If a same sex partnership adopts, or in the case of women, one of them gives birth, as you saying that child is not part of the family? I say it is, just as much as my brother and sister-in-law's adopted son!

Sue


Sigh......!

So if your cousin was having an incestuous relationship with his 4 year old, I presume you would want to include that too? Remember, no moral judgements allowed! And if great uncle Joe announced he was marrying his dog, RM should have a place for species of spouse? Why not, since we can't have an allowance for moral judgements?

The argument against moral judgements is, in fact, entirely spurious. Everyone makes moral judgements; it's simply that if you disagree with mine that you would choose to make this argument. I'd be willing to bet a fairly large amount (if I were a gambler!) that you never accuse anyone of inappropriate moralizing when their viewpoint happens to agree with yours.

Regards,

View Post

[/quote]


#7 landbrake

landbrake

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 341 posts

Posted 16 September 2005 - 03:52 PM

QUOTE(Sleferson @ Sep 16 2005, 12:05 PM)
I didn't intend to start a fight; I only wish to have the option of choosing a spousal sex for a cousin in my family in a long-term partnership with someone of the same sex.  I certainly don't think an incestuous relationship falls under the same umbrella.  If a same sex partnership adopts, or in the case of women, one of them gives birth, as you saying that child is not part of the family?  I say it is, just as much as my brother and sister-in-law's adopted son!

Sue


I absolutely agree with not starting a fight! smile.gif But having been on this forum for a while, I know how quickly this topic can degenerate into one.... sad.gif

I think Dick made a very good point in his post about being able to define any kind of fact type you want. I personally wouldn't include this kind of information in the database, not only because of my own sqeamishness, but because I (along with most people) share genealogy info with other family members far and wide, and I'd hate to be the one responsible for a cousin having to explain to her 7 year old why two people of the same sex are listed as "married" when the child sees that "fact" in some report I've sent to them.

But that is clearly up to you, and I've never had any quarrel with anyone putting in whatever information they want. My only objection all along is with Bruce being pressured to change RM to make such relationships appear in the database to have equal and equivalent status to a traditional marriage.

A somewhat analogous situation arises with girlfriend/boyfriend/finance/etc. If two people of the opposite sex are simply co-habiting (or whatever the term is these days) I never include that in my database unless a child or children result. This is a sad situation, and also one that I wouldn't like to explain to a 7 year old, but at least this does get to the very heart of what genealogy (in the strict biological sense) is all about.

In the case you mentioned where a child comes into the picture of a same-sex partnership, I guess I would put the "parent" who is a blood relationship to me in with the child, and simply leave the spouse field blank. But again, that would be just my own persoanl preference. If you feel the need to add a user defined fact type for the relationship then you should be (and are) free to do so.

I realize that there are many people on both sides of this issue, but I feel I would be very remiss if I didn't speak of in defence of what I believe to be obvious, self-evident truth, and then also to clarify which parts I recognize as being simply my own opinion.

As always,

Best regards,


#8 Lingbro

Lingbro

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 21 September 2005 - 05:17 PM

How should I record a legally adopted child from a "same Sex" "marriage" in my database? The child has 2 legal parents, "adopted" not of same "blood line" as most adoptees aren't. Do I have to "pick" a parent, and ingore the other? Should I deny that the child has two legal parents, and explained to the child later on, when she reads the report, that her parents marriage is "legally correct", but not "morally correct" (according to "my" beliefs), thus could not include her parents as "parents" in the report. Do I have a right to do that??? Wouldn't that create more issues I wouldn't care to get into. Do I just "drop" them from my report altogether, then explain to the child later why I couldn't include her and/or her parents in our Family History because of moral issues?

I realize this topic is very sentitive to many people, I included, but do I have the right to adjust my genealogy to a picture "I want to present to others" or do I want to include facts as they are. Most of us have cousins, etc in our family "hard to explain" and often an "embassment" to the majority of us.

One of the Basic things I've LOVED about Family Origins and now RootsMagic, is that it IS "User-defined" and flexible, so "Blood-lines" or "family history" styled genealogies could be employed. It's a "user-defined" program, flexible, and it should up to the researcher how to present their family history in their database and in reports. My genealogy, without a doubt is "Family History". I've never had a problem before now recording my family history, whether it was in Family Origins or RootsMagic, because I've always had "user-define" options to work with. I've never had to define "family" as to whether they were "blood-line" or not , but, rather, if they were "legally" attached to our family, keeping in mind, many of our ancestors didn't have the benefit of "legal or moral bondings". - they were just accepted "as a permanent member of the family".

To be fair and flexible - Perhaps we should add DNA tracing in RootsMagic. also.

#9 JohnG

JohnG

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 344 posts

Posted 21 September 2005 - 08:47 PM

QUOTE(Lingbro @ Sep 21 2005, 06:17 PM)
To be fair and flexible - Perhaps we should add DNA tracing in RootsMagic. also.

View Post


I think that was proposed once before
JohnG

#10 Alfred

Alfred

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5733 posts

Posted 21 September 2005 - 09:26 PM

One more time, I will tell you how to do it.

Add the spouse to the person in question, let RootsMagic select the sex as normal.

Export a GEDCOM file of just these two people.

Open the GEDCOM file with WordPad or something and change the sex of the spouse from "M" to "F" or visa versa.

Go back into your database and delete this family, and the people too.

Iport the GEDCOM file back into your database and link the original person back as a child of the proper parents.

Add a child to this couple if you want, they will be recorded as spouses with a child, one will be the husband or father and the other the wife, or mother, and they will be of the same sex.


Alfred

#11 bienia

bienia

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 784 posts

Posted 22 September 2005 - 06:59 AM

Allowing same sex partners may seem a trivial task. However, since same sex parters cannot have children together, the next hurdle is how to force the program to allow only one of the same sex partners to be the biological parent. What is the relationship to the other parent?

RootsMagic doesn't handle adoption where there are a husband and a wife, and report the relationships in any of the reports. For instance, adopted children are lumped together with biological children, rather than being shown separately. This is far more important to correct, in my opinion, than the wrestling with the issues over same sex partners.

Bill
-----------
Bill Bienia

RootsMagic Tips sheets: www.CobblestoneLegacies.com/resources.htm

#12 Cliff

Cliff

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts

Posted 22 September 2005 - 10:28 AM

Wow, we bash this subject to no end. I have read with most interest the thoughts of everyone and now would like to get this off "my" chest. First let me say that I am LDS and am strongly against pologomy, same sex marriages and common law marriages and "I" feel that all three are immoral. Currently, pologomy is not supported by the law of the land (U.S., I am talking about) or the LDS Church, but I can easily enter this in my RM program. Commonlaw marriages is not supported by the LDS Church but supported by the law of the land and I can easily enter this data into the program. Same sex marriage is not supported by the LDS Church, yet is accepted by a number of growing countries.
Thank goodness, we LDS researchers don't have to go through the create, export to Gedcom, import, delete, create, etc etc for all of our plural marriages we create. It would drive us just crazy!
I feel that genealogy is more than just blood line. Many of us want to write family history that include all facts of life. If I record a same sex marriage union of many years, it might save someone a lot of hours trying to research the existence of an opposite sex union. The "other" partner may have played a strong roll in history and by researching them, we might learn many facts of our blood-line relative.
Some may not choose to include all data of a relative and some may include everything. Well if my Uncle Fred married that dog of his, I would get a lot of good reading about that!
Like it or not, same sex unions is being more widely accepted all the time and for one to think otherwise is just hiding your head in the sand. Personally, I just don't see the big deal (I am NOT talking morally), to have a program that accepts same sex marriage.
Respectfully Submitted,
Cliff
P.S. I love ALL of you good people! dry.gif
Cliff

#13 Guest_craigg_*

Guest_craigg_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 September 2005 - 04:46 PM

Well said Cliff!!!!

#14 Sleferson

Sleferson

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6 posts

Posted 23 September 2005 - 12:54 PM

QUOTE(craigg @ Sep 22 2005, 06:46 PM)
Well said Cliff!!!!

View Post



Cliff, thank you for saying what I have been trying to say but couldn't. You're the best! biggrin.gif Sue

#15 KHemmelman

KHemmelman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 90 posts

Posted 23 September 2005 - 07:10 PM

Like Cliff, I see no reason the option to select a sex couldn't be added. I'm personally against that life style and always will be. I don't care if a particular state or city takes action to legalize common law unions or marriages, I will never recognize them and think it's sad that a few states/cities have done so. Having said this though, my personal feelings aren't reason enough to stop the RM program from advancing in functionality.