geneology buffs: ancestry.com discriminates!

[Ben Gruagach]

Apparently ancestry.com openly discriminates against GLBT participants. More details at http://lezgetreal.com/2008/12/ancenstrycom-gives-whackie-response.html

They claim they can't allow same-sex relationships to be included in the database because children can't be produced as a result. Do they also reject heterosexual relationships where the couple do not have children? Do they reject adoptions? Do they reject step-parents?

[Philosophia]

Isn't ancestory.com owned by the Mormon church? Plus, it states something about their software. Does anybody have any idea about what software they use? :huh:

[~Elise~]

yes...they do reject step parents...I can't be shown as step mom to Rick's kids or him as step dad to mine. or as grandparents to each others grandkids when that's what the grandkids call us.

Elise

[Ben Gruagach]

Isn't ancestory.com owned by the Mormon church? Plus, it states something about their software. Does anybody have any idea about what software they use? :huh:

Yeah, ancestry.com is owned by a company called "The Generations Network" which includes all sorts of worldwide sites for geneology. They are headquartered in Utah so it would be very likely the company's founder/owner is Mormon. However, it's a company and not just the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints -- I can't see how they can be excused from having to follow laws that apply to businesses.

The software thing is just an excuse rather than a reason. They basically said their database is not set up to allow same-sex couples to be included. Someone in authority had to make that decision. It's hardly a programming or software problem.

I see that Ancestry.com has a Canadian site too at Ancestry.ca. In Canada same-sex marriages have been legal for a number of years now, and we have federal and provincial laws that forbid discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. I wonder if they have "allowed" same-sex relationships to be recorded in the Canadian version. Since it's all owned by the same company, it would make it hard for them to justify discriminating in the US version of the site. And if they are discriminating in the Canadian version, they will likely find themselves in hot legal water rather quickly if they continue to discriminate.

[Ben Gruagach]

I sent an email to Support at Ancestry.ca to ask about how they handle various "non-traditional" relationships, or relationships that don't produce children, or relationships that include adopted children and step-parents, as well as same-sex couples. I'll report back what their response is.

[Louisvillian]

Is ancestry.com intended to have recorded data for family in general, or only blood relations? The answer to that question determines whether or not they are truly being discriminatory to same-sex couples specifically, or if you are overreacting a bit.
Given that they also do not include step-parents and adoptive parents, I'm leaning towards the latter.

Even so, I think they should definitely include data for same-sex parents, step-parents, adoptive parents, and other non-blood relations. It is discriminatory against non-blood family, period, for them not to.

[David19]

That's just complete shit, hopefully, if they want to be bigots, then fine, let them, but, hopefully, they'll lose all their business as people go to other, better, geneology organisations.

They can be as bigoted as they like then, but, at least, they won't be making any money at all.

[aranarose]

Is ancestry.com intended to have recorded data for family in general, or only blood relations? The answer to that question determines whether or not they are truly being discriminatory to same-sex couples specifically, or if you are overreacting a bit.
Given that they also do not include step-parents and adoptive parents, I'm leaning towards the latter.

Even so, I think they should definitely include data for same-sex parents, step-parents, adoptive parents, and other non-blood relations. It is discriminatory against non-blood family, period, for them not to.

They do exclude other non-blood relations, so proving any sort of discrimination based on sexual orientation will be difficult to do.

[Ben Gruagach]

Since the company is Mormon-owned, I wonder if they allow polygamous relationships to be recorded. If not, they'd have to leave a lot of key early Mormon figures out of the database which I'm sure won't go over well with their target Mormon customers.

And if they do allow nontraditional relationships like polygamous ones to be recorded, then it gets increasingly difficult to accept why they should be allowed to discriminate against other nontraditional relationships like (gasp!) adoptive families or stepfamilies or same-sex families.

[~Elise~]

In fact, in the ancestry software doesn't recognize poly relationships, either.

Elise

[David19]

Since the company is Mormon-owned, I wonder if they allow polygamous relationships to be recorded. If not, they'd have to leave a lot of key early Mormon figures out of the database which I'm sure won't go over well with their target Mormon customers.

And if they do allow nontraditional relationships like polygamous ones to be recorded, then it gets increasingly difficult to accept why they should be allowed to discriminate against other nontraditional relationships like (gasp!) adoptive families or stepfamilies or same-sex families.


In fact, in the ancestry software doesn't recognize poly relationships, either.

Elise

Like Ben said, that would, probably, leave a lot of early Mormon families out, which wouldn't go down too well.

Personally, I agree with what the woman in the original article said:


Just like eHarmony, if you want to pester them, GO FOR IT! But after they lose the battle, why stay with them?

I say use Geni.com and just shrug your shoulder at this other website that from this point on shall remain nameless from me.

Oh yes, and please pass the word: THIS NAMELESS WEBSITE IS STUCK IN THE ICE AGES AND HASN'T LEARNED FROM eHARMONY!

Fight them if you want, but, don't stay with them, and also, if you're introducing people to Geneology research, tell them to ignore ancestry.com, go to other, better, organisations that aren't bigots, and stuck in the Ice Ages. Ancestry.com won't change, if they continue to have lots of customers, take away their publicity, and money, and maybe they'll come into the 21st century.

[Ben Gruagach]

I hadn't heard of geni.com until I saw it mentioned in the article that I linked at the start of this thread. I've gone to that site and have set up a free account, and have started getting my family tree in there.

I hope that alternatives like geni.com get lots of traffic as a result and beat out ancestry.com as the place to do geneology!

[David19]

I hadn't heard of geni.com until I saw it mentioned in the article that I linked at the start of this thread. I've gone to that site and have set up a free account, and have started getting my family tree in there.

I hope that alternatives like geni.com get lots of traffic as a result and beat out ancestry.com as the place to do geneology!

Me too, I hope you have a lot of success with geni.com, and I hope that it beats Ancestry.com.

[Nicholas]

Apparently ancestry.com openly discriminates against GLBT participants. More details at http://lezgetreal.com/2008/12/ancenstrycom-gives-whackie-response.html

They claim they can't allow same-sex relationships to be included in the database because children can't be produced as a result. Do they also reject heterosexual relationships where the couple do not have children? Do they reject adoptions? Do they reject step-parents?

I'm glad I'm not the only one who found that out, I noticed it first when SS was using their database I noticed it was all "Husband" "Wife". I thought for the day and age that it was very... inconsiderate of them to do this. Perhaps there are some personal feelings towards same-sex couplings from the creators?

Edit: What if a couple were to have a child then one of them had a sex change? Would they be recognized?

[Ben Gruagach]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who found that out, I noticed it first when SS was using their database I noticed it was all "Husband" "Wife". I thought for the day and age that it was very... inconsiderate of them to do this. Perhaps there are some personal feelings towards same-sex couplings from the creators?

Edit: What if a couple were to have a child then one of them had a sex change? Would they be recognized?

Here's another very possible hypothetical that would likely blow their minds:

What if the wife's egg and the husband's sperm was used to conceive a child, but the child was carried to term and given birth by a surrogate mother?

And we're not that far away from genetic material being transplanted from an egg to a sperm, or from a sperm to an egg. That would open up things so two men could have a baby (with a surrogate mother) where the baby is produced by genetic material from both fathers, or two women could have a baby where no father was involved!

[David19]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who found that out, I noticed it first when SS was using their database I noticed it was all "Husband" "Wife". I thought for the day and age that it was very... inconsiderate of them to do this. Perhaps there are some personal feelings towards same-sex couplings from the creators?

Edit: What if a couple were to have a child then one of them had a sex change? Would they be recognized?


Here's another very possible hypothetical that would likely blow their minds:

What if the wife's egg and the husband's sperm was used to conceive a child, but the child was carried to term and given birth by a surrogate mother?

And we're not that far away from genetic material being transplanted from an egg to a sperm, or from a sperm to an egg. That would open up things so two men could have a baby (with a surrogate mother) where the baby is produced by genetic material from both fathers, or two women could have a baby where no father was involved!

If those things were to happen, the creators would probably consider it "abnormal" and remove the people from Ancestry.com. Also, going from what Ben said, there have been some studies that show that, sometime in the future, it may be possible for 2 men to have kids together, with a man being pregnant, no woman involved, or 2 women having kids together, etc. Personally, when that happens, hopefully, Ancestry.com will have lost a lot of their business.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

I must say I find this amusing in it's lack of research.

Ancestry.com does offer an ability to start or create a family tree but it appears that is a side offering that is done through a program offered by the LDS. While hosted under the site I'm not positive it is a portion of the primary documents and mterials site.

I can state for sure it was not a portion or primary componet when I first signed up for the service. Yes, ancestry offered something called World Family tree that was based mostly off of the submissions from the Family Tree Maker program that was developed by Broderbund software. Those subission now number over 900 discs that last time I counted.

Ancestry did buy out Genealogy.com and Rootsweb.com and that later database is now part of their online data. That database is available as a package part of a subscription or as a free database. Yet, that database also supports same sex marriage data and relationships. As a database it even supports the notion of unknown sex. The Genealogy.com message boards are also searchable under some componets of the Ancestry.com package.

As an experiment I tried my program, Family Tree Maker 2009, to see if it recognized or allowed for same sex marriage information. I can say after a number of examples I was able to enter and create quit a few same sex marriage and family records.

In the years I have used the program and it's earlier incarnations I have frequently used it to create family tree's which contain step parents, step siblings, multiple marriages, close releated family marriages, etc. Step relationships which have appeared each and every time I have uploaded my data to the Rootsweb site.

The biggest drawback I ever encountered was the operators inability to enter the data correctly. Though I attribute that to operator error and not software errors. However, those errors are easier corrected as the product has changed over the years.

Of note, most of ancestry.com is also built around providing scanned images of primary documents. Images of Census Records, Offical Marriage records, Military Enlistment records, Pension Records, Naturalization Records, etc. Items which contain information based upon official mandates and regulations for entry of information.

I readily admit that the LDS site offers a PAF format Genealogy program for free usuage. Beyond that statemet I can offer no information as I do not use said program so do not now of any limitations contained within it.

As I read these entries I find that the statements seem to support the LDS site Family Search.org and it's restrictions more than the Ancestry.com site. The LDS site is far more restrictive in the data content and is largely built around the requirement the LDS has of each member doing a family tree of their ancestry and converting and binding their deceased ancestors to that chuch. Many of the entries derived from actual submitted records.

What I trully find amusing is that no genealogist would take a general submitted record as proof of anything more than a possible clue to leed in a general research direction. A collector of genealogies may take such records for fact so in that regard it maybe limiting.

One missing componet is that any one could submit a GEDCOM file for inclusion into the database. Yet while every program I have experimented with will accept a GEDCOM file for data transfer not all will read the file exactly as the field names may vary from format to format. Even the structure of said field may vary from program to program.

Just to note the format I have used or seen used are PAF, Family Tree Maker (r), World Tree(r).

[~Elise~]

I, too, use FTM 2009. I uploaded my tree from ancestry...on my kids, Rick is NOT shown as a step father. Their fathers are entered and that is the preferred parent pair and I am not seeing a way to change that. Same with his kids, I'm not step mom.

My SIL has the option of being step dad to one of my granddaughters because her natural father isn't entered.

It is not standard on ancestry and FTM to have alternative relationships--at least that I've seen. Granted I am new to FTM.

[Caitlin.ann]

Whats the best tool to use to make family trees? FTM or something else? Is FTM free?

[~Elise~]

nope...FTM isn't free.

PAF is free...but I found the interface to be not friendly or intuitive.

Elise

[MonSno_LeeDra]

Elise,

If you go under the Person tab on the individual and select relationships a colum will appear on the right side of the screen. Under this folder you can select the relationship that the highlighted person has to the primary person in the file selected.

For instance if I select myself:

Carl P. Breeden JR, my father appears beneath my name. Within his window I can select the relationship to myself. Beneath that are the names of both my parents. However, it could also display altenate parents for me if I was adopted or a stepchild.

Then I would have the choice of chosing which I desired to be displayed though both would show up if I placed it upon the net under rootsweb or printed out the file.

For instance I have a cousin that I show under her birth parents for lineage purpose but also show her adopted parents for who raised her. When I pull up her file, under person it gives both fathers, ie natural and adopted and the same for her mother. Any step siblings are displayed on her page as well. As I select each name the right window shows thier relationshiop to the primary individual.

On the task bar above the name information, one can see the individual and a place for children or spouse. Before that is the name of parents or alernate parents. If you click on the pull down menu you have the option of seeing all fathers, mothers for the child or adding on to the child in question.

There are other places to add or correct it but that is the most direct and shows all the info at once. Hope that helps. I'm not an expert but please feel free to ask any time and I'll help best as I can.

[~Elise~]

I'll go try that... I'll let you know.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

Elise,

Almost forgot you will ned to set the primary or preferred person to show up on the tree's as parent. That is a limitation of the program, unless selected it reverts to the biological or first entered as preferred parent.

Not perfect but lots better than the 3.0 version I first used back in 97 or pen and paper prior to that.



Sacredsin,

The PAF format is the free program by LDS. I tried a few times and it was like pulling teeth for me. I know a few who swear by it but to me it's not that great or easy to use. Of course I know people who say the same about FTM. I will say the 2009 FTM is a significant change in presentation and screen format so that has takkn a bit to get used to in comparrison to the earlier versions I have used.

[~Elise~]

nope...didn't see a way to add me as step mom, not without adding a new person as Step-mom...I don't need more duplicate people.

Elise

[MonSno_LeeDra]

I'm confused. If your in the file already and listed as a spouse of thier father you should be able to show either the natural mother as mother or set yourself as a preferred step mother to those childen. Granted you can't show two active woman as the preferred mother, one will always be the natural mother and one the step.

One method is to attach the child to both sets of parents under the attach child sub-routine. Under that one can select whether one is primary or alternate and have both show up under the childs folder information.

If desired you could also enter yourself as an alternate or step parent then merge that entry into your existing entry for yourself. It takes a few extra steps but the end results are the same. Under the merge routine the program should actually ask you what your relationbship will be to the children or child listed under your name.

About the only way one can remove the step listing is to detach the child from either parent set A or parent set B.

[Ben Gruagach]

I thought I'd add an update.

I sent a support email request to Ancestry.ca (the Canadian version of their Ancestry.com site) asking about whether they supported non-traditional families such as adoptive, step-families, same-sex couples, etc.

I have not received any sort of acknowledgement or response from them.

I went to the Geni.com website and checked them out. They are VERY easy to use and are very inclusive with regard to non-traditional family structures. I had a GED file with my family tree in it and had no problem uploading it and then seeing all that lovely data on the Geni.com site. And the account was free to set up.

Geni.com does have a paid "pro" account but I'm not sure what extras it provides. The free account is pretty complete.

Geni.com also lets you set your family tree info as private so it's only available to people you invite. It's set to private by default -- you need to actually tell the system to make it public if that is your preference.

I've invited other family members to check out Geni.com and have got a few of them already signed up and actively adding new info. It's easy, appealing, and has lots of features (photos, videos, etc.)

Hard-core genealogists will still have to deal with the crabby discriminatory services to track down specific bits of info, of course, but for the rest of us I think that alternatives like Geni.com do an excellent job. And Geni.com lets us record the way our families TRULY are structured, not just the way someone thinks they SHOULD be structured!

[David19]

I thought I'd add an update.

I sent a support email request to Ancestry.ca (the Canadian version of their Ancestry.com site) asking about whether they supported non-traditional families such as adoptive, step-families, same-sex couples, etc.

I have not received any sort of acknowledgement or response from them.

I went to the Geni.com website and checked them out. They are VERY easy to use and are very inclusive with regard to non-traditional family structures. I had a GED file with my family tree in it and had no problem uploading it and then seeing all that lovely data on the Geni.com site. And the account was free to set up.

Geni.com does have a paid "pro" account but I'm not sure what extras it provides. The free account is pretty complete.

Geni.com also lets you set your family tree info as private so it's only available to people you invite. It's set to private by default -- you need to actually tell the system to make it public if that is your preference.

I've invited other family members to check out Geni.com and have got a few of them already signed up and actively adding new info. It's easy, appealing, and has lots of features (photos, videos, etc.)

Hard-core genealogists will still have to deal with the crabby discriminatory services to track down specific bits of info, of course, but for the rest of us I think that alternatives like Geni.com do an excellent job. And Geni.com lets us record the way our families TRULY are structured, not just the way someone thinks they SHOULD be structured!

That's great Ben, like I said before, hopefully, more people will go to Geni, and not Ancestry.com. If I know anyone who is considering doing Geneology, I'll tell them about Geni.

[Thunder]

I have been following this thread and, honestly, I don't know what you are all so upset about. Step relationships are not part of your genealogy. Neither are gay partners. It isn't personal or even moral it is biological. That is after all what a genealogy is... the genetic, biological tree of your descendants and antecedents. If you were allowed to link to people who do not fit that definition the tree would be useless. Why is that rather simple and obvious fact lost in this thread?

If you want to write a Family History… do so, but that is not what a genealogy is.

[Ben Gruagach]

I have been following this thread and, honestly, I don't know what you are all so upset about. Step relationships are not part of your genealogy. Neither are gay partners. It isn't personal or even moral it is biological. That is after all what a genealogy is... the genetic, biological tree of your descendants and antecedents. If you were allowed to link to people who do not fit that definition the tree would be useless. Why is that rather simple and obvious fact lost in this thread?

If you want to write a Family History… do so, but that is not what a genealogy is.

Genealogy is not just about bloodlines. Bloodlines are about bloodlines. Genealogy is about family relationships, parent and child relationships, records of who is connected to who.

And when we are talking about family relationships that includes spouses who do not produce children, step-parents, adoptive families, and same-sex relationships too.

If I wanted to know my genetic lineage I would look that up. When I want to know more about family relationships, I do a family tree.

[Thunder]

Genealogy is not just about bloodlines. Bloodlines are about bloodlines. Genealogy is about family relationships, parent and child relationships, records of who is connected to who.

And when we are talking about family relationships that includes spouses who do not produce children, step-parents, adoptive families, and same-sex relationships too.

If I wanted to know my genetic lineage I would look that up. When I want to know more about family relationships, I do a family tree.
No it isn't... sorry, but you are wrong. What do you think the gene in genealogy stands for?

[MonSno_LeeDra]

I think this is getting back to the old question is one a genealogist or simply a person who collects genealogies?

For my direct blood-line I follow father/mother to son/daughter as the blood line is my direct ancestry. That is the line or chain that is my birth right and heritage. In that regards there will never be a same sex relationship in my direct ancestry.

That is the true depth of defining what is my heritage and lineage. For most pure genealogist that is the only goal of their task, blood to blood to blood.

However, as a genealogist I also track the ancestry / descendents of my family lines and siblings produced of those lines. In that regard it is not a true genealogy of a direct heritage based upon biological lineage but a historical record of a families presence upon the landscape.

In that regard it is a record of a families rise or demise. A record of joining of different family lines and the continuation of or termination of a given branch upon the greater tree.

Yet to some extent also a true blood line for the blood which flows in my veins came from the same ancesteral source of the first man/wife we can identify.

As a genealogist stepfamilies are of concern to me as a living and breathing person with step members I recogize as nephews, nieces, aunts and uncles. However, I also realize to my ancestors and descendents they are nothing more than a brief glimpse into the humanity of my times and for that moment how I defined the concept of family.

A relationship that produces no off spring is not a loss though. It may reveal many of the terriable events of our past. That a line or branch ended at that point does not make it an invalid line. It simply marks the termination point of one more line of lineage.

[Ben Gruagach]

Well there has been a very interesting development in the Ancestry.com story...

Apparently Ancestry.com (despite that some people say genealogy is SUPPOSEDLY exclusively about "bloodlines") does in fact allow adoptive relationships to be recorded in their system. And as a result of the concerns about including "non-traditional" relationships in the database Ancestry.com's CEO Tim Sullivan has announced that their system will welcome all types of families by the end of the first quarter of 2009 (http://jaysays.com/2008/12/ancestrycom-evolves-with-the-definition-of-family/).

It's nice to see that there are some people who are willing to make inclusive changes so that all family relationships can be honoured when climbing the ol' family tree!

[Ben Gruagach]

Regarding the tracing of family trees, branches, children, and carrying on a family name...

... I'm gay, married to my same-sex partner, and we have two adopted sons who will carry on our family names.

In my spouse's family, he has a great-aunt who is lesbian and who raised kids with her spouse (the father was absent from the picture from what I understand.) Those kids are adults and have kids of their own now.

There have been same-sex couples raising kids for as long as there have been people having kids and raising kids. Adoption and step-parent relationships are not new. If you look back through your family tree you will likely find that there are all sorts of branches that stem from these sorts of relationships.

And what about so-called "bastard" branches? In my own family, on my dad's side we only need to go back about five or six generations before we hit dear old great great (whatever many times) grandma who had a whole gaggle of kids, but who never married, and who never identified who the daddies were. All her kids took grandma's family name. Is the whole branch of the family (including me, my siblings, my dad and his siblings, etc.) supposed to just disappear from the family tree?

And how many families honestly don't have this sort of "bastard" branch somewhere back in the tree? We're all descendants of bastards one way or another if we go back far enough.

[David19]

Genealogy is not just about bloodlines. Bloodlines are about bloodlines. Genealogy is about family relationships, parent and child relationships, records of who is connected to who.

And when we are talking about family relationships that includes spouses who do not produce children, step-parents, adoptive families, and same-sex relationships too.

If I wanted to know my genetic lineage I would look that up. When I want to know more about family relationships, I do a family tree.

QFT, bloodlines may be part of genealogy, but, as I understand Family Trees, they're also about your family, that's something that can go beyond blood. It also includes step-children, adoptive children, etc. I mean, if someone is doing their Genealogy/Family Tree, and they have some adopted kids, or step-children, should they just ignore them, and tell the kids "sorry, you know I love you, but, you can't, properly, be part of this family"?.

Geni doesn't seem mind non-blood relatives being included, so, clearly, not all Genealogy organisations take the same view as Ancestry.com.

[David19]

Well there has been a very interesting development in the Ancestry.com story...

Apparently Ancestry.com (despite that some people say genealogy is SUPPOSEDLY exclusively about "bloodlines") does in fact allow adoptive relationships to be recorded in their system. And as a result of the concerns about including "non-traditional" relationships in the database Ancestry.com's CEO Tim Sullivan has announced that their system will welcome all types of families by the end of the first quarter of 2009 (http://jaysays.com/2008/12/ancestrycom-evolves-with-the-definition-of-family/).

It's nice to see that there are some people who are willing to make inclusive changes so that all family relationships can be honoured when climbing the ol' family tree!

That's great Ben, I'm glad Ancestry.com are moving in to the 21st century, if it really happens, then it can be a great geneaology organisation.


Regarding the tracing of family trees, branches, children, and carrying on a family name...

... I'm gay, married to my same-sex partner, and we have two adopted sons who will carry on our family names.

In my spouse's family, he has a great-aunt who is lesbian and who raised kids with her spouse (the father was absent from the picture from what I understand.) Those kids are adults and have kids of their own now.

There have been same-sex couples raising kids for as long as there have been people having kids and raising kids. Adoption and step-parent relationships are not new. If you look back through your family tree you will likely find that there are all sorts of branches that stem from these sorts of relationships.

And what about so-called "bastard" branches? In my own family, on my dad's side we only need to go back about five or six generations before we hit dear old great great (whatever many times) grandma who had a whole gaggle of kids, but who never married, and who never identified who the daddies were. All her kids took grandma's family name. Is the whole branch of the family (including me, my siblings, my dad and his siblings, etc.) supposed to just disappear from the family tree?

And how many families honestly don't have this sort of "bastard" branch somewhere back in the tree? We're all descendants of bastards one way or another if we go back far enough.

Again, QFT, same-sex parents have, probably, existed since the dawn of time, maybe they weren't as accepted as hetrosexual parents, or families, but, I'm sure they existed, and step-parents/children, and adoptive children have always existed.

As for "bastard" children, my parents aren't married, if that makes me a bastard, then fine, I don't see anything wrong with parents not being married, the world doesn't end, kids are affected, in any negative way, by parents not being married (I'll also admit to being a bitch!).

[Ben Gruagach]

QFT, bloodlines may be part of genealogy, but, as I understand Family Trees, they're also about your family, that's something that can go beyond blood. It also includes step-children, adoptive children, etc. I mean, if someone is doing their Genealogy/Family Tree, and they have some adopted kids, or step-children, should they just ignore them, and tell the kids "sorry, you know I love you, but, you can't, properly, be part of this family"?.

Geni doesn't seem mind non-blood relatives being included, so, clearly, not all Genealogy organisations take the same view as Ancestry.com.

I find the "bloodlines" argument to be faulty in the case of Ancestry.com as well because they already do allow adoptive relationships into the database.

[David19]

I find the "bloodlines" argument to be faulty in the case of Ancestry.com as well because they already do allow adoptive relationships into the database.

That's another reason why geneology isn't just about bloodlines, and why same-sex couples should be included.

[Ben Gruagach]

I finally got a response from the Ancestry.com support people. I had sent them the following message:



Hi there.

I'm interested in finding out how Ancestry.ca deals with various types of relationships in its database.

I realize that the basic relationship recorded is going to be a husband, a wife, and any biological children they produce.

Are there problems with any of the following situations being recorded in the database?

1. A husband and wife who are not legally married.
2. A husband and wife who are legally married but who do not produce children.
3. A husband and wife who adopt a child.
4. A husband and wife who have a child using reproductive technology (i.e. sperm or egg donors, or with the assistance of a surrogate mother.)
5. A single parent who is raising a child but who either does not know the other parent, or who refuses to divulge the name of the other parent.
6. A same-sex couple (who may or may not be married -- same-sex marriages are legally recognized in Canada as well as a number of other places around the world.)

After all, many people these days have rather "colourful" family trees and it would be a shame to not be able to document and explore all the branches.

Thanks.


Here's the response. Note that they jumped right to talking about same-sex couples. I suspect they've been getting lots of questions about this and the response I got was a canned one rather than a personal reply.


We appreciate your message.

Due to a technical limitation with Ancestry.com online family trees, users currently cannot easily include same gender partners and spouses in their family tree. Our desktop software program(s), Family Tree Maker 2008/2009, do include this functionality. We are working aggressively on this issue on Ancestry and anticipate resolving it by the end of the first quarter of 2009. As the leader in online family history, we are constantly seeking to evolve and improve our service with a goal of allowing all to tell their unique family story.

If there is anything else with which we might assist you, please let us know.

Sarah
Member Solutions
Ancestry.com
http://ancestry.custhelp.com/

[~Elise~]

yeah...I got a canned response to a question I sent in, also. And the part of the canned answer that was their solution was what I'd said in my email would be pointless and time consuming. Go figure.

[Ben Edair]

Children are produced as the result of a biological union between a man and a woman, or by combining the sex-cells extracted and artifically inseminated from them. This is the only way that children are produced. It may be discriminatory, but that is just nature. Life is not "fair", the world, nature and the universe are not morally bound by any set of ethics to be "fair" to everyone equally. No matter how much it may bother us mere mortals, that is simply how it is. We are not all clones of one another, we are each differently advantaged or disadvantaged owing to a vast number of different factors, not the least of which is genetics. All humans are not created equal. Some are short, some are tall, some are thin, some are fat, some have superior intelligence, some are intellectually deficent; some are straight, some are gay, some are asexual, some are pedophiles and some are into beastiality - different strokes for different folks, but as long as we are not all the same, we cannot expect that society, the world, nature, or even our fellow humans will all treat us the same. The fact that a genealogy website is set up to reflect the fact that children are only produced by a union of sex cells from a man and a woman is hardly a cause for concern. Of course gay couples can adopt children, that is a legal issue, but genealogy isn't dictated by legality, it is determined by genetics. Adoptive parents usually have no genetic relationship to the children they adopt. Adoption is simply a legal way for someone who is not a child's natural parent to legally assume the role of that child's parent. The law cannot change the fact that that child has no genetic relationship to the adoptive parent. Genealogists aren't particularly interested in the artificial constructs of adoption, fosterage, etc. These are mere anecdotes of an individuals upbringing. What matters to the genealogist is the actual genetic relationship, the blood heritage that is passed from one generation to the next. We all live in the real world that is not concerned with our whims and fantasies. In nature, every child has only one father and one mother, everything else is just make-believe.

[~Elise~]

ummm...no...adoption makes them yours, dude. They are able to inherit, etc. Blood lines don't mean crap when legality of adoption enters the picture.

When adoption occurs...your new family's ancestors are now your ancestors.

[Ben Edair]

ummm...no...adoption makes them yours, dude. They are able to inherit, etc. Blood lines don't mean crap when legality of adoption enters the picture.

When adoption occurs...your new family's ancestors are now your ancestors.

Perhaps in your own fantasies, but not in the reality of the natural universe. Adoption cannot change a person's ancestry or their genes. Genealogy is about genetics, not about the whims of people who wish to pretend to be the parents of children who are not in reality even related to them.

[~Elise~]

Perhaps in your own fantasies, but not in the reality of the natural universe. Adoption cannot change a person's ancestry or their genes. Genealogy is about genetics, not about the whims of people who wish to pretend to be the parents of children who are not in reality even related to them.

You've done it...I'm speechless.

How callous and rude this post is beyond the pale.

[la tortuga]

Perhaps in your own fantasies, but not in the reality of the natural universe. Adoption cannot change a person's ancestry or their genes. Genealogy is about genetics, not about the whims of people who wish to pretend to be the parents of children who are not in reality even related to them.

*blinks* I'll have to disagree with you, there. My uncle adopted his wife's kids when they got married and he's more of a father to them than their father was, since he's in prison. My grandfather adopted my mother and her brother when he married their mother and he's more of a father to them than their fathers ever were, if they ever knew them at all. Parenthood is so much more than a genetic relationship and genealogy is more than tracing that genetic tie. It shows the construct of a family. My aunt's kids are still my cousins and my grandfather's children prior to his marriage to my grandmother are still my aunt and uncle.

You're also needlessly rude, by the way. You can respectfully disagree with someone rather than saying something crappy to them.

[Ben Edair]

You've done it...I'm speechless.

How callous and rude this post is beyond the pale.

It wasn't my intention to be rude, just to point out the reality of the situation. Do you really go through life thinking that nature, the universe and everything functions on some system of equality and fairness? It doesn't. Nature makes some people sterile and others fertile. That's just life. You may not like it, you may rail against it, you can even pretend that it isn't so, but it is. The world is full of unfainess - cripples, homeless, mental defectives, those who exploit and those who are exploited. Most of life is about learning to deal with the hand you are dealt. Some choose to do this by constructing elaborate fantasies, but the fact that they do so in no way validates the reality of their delusions.

[~Elise~]

It wasn't my intention to be rude, just to point out the reality of the situation. Do you really go through life thinking that nature, the universe and everything functions on some system of equality and fairness? It doesn't. Nature makes some people sterile and others fertile. That's just life. You may not like it, you may rail against it, you can even pretend that it isn't so, but it is. The world is full of unfainess - cripples, homeless, mental defectives, those who exploit and those who are exploited. Most of life is about learning to deal with the hand you are dealt. Some choose to do this by constructing elaborate fantasies, but the fact that they do so in no way validates the reality of their delusions.

Your defination of reality is not mine.

[Ben Edair]

*blinks* I'll have to disagree with you, there. My uncle adopted his wife's kids when they got married and he's more of a father to them than their father was, since he's in prison. My grandfather adopted my mother and her brother when he married their mother and he's more of a father to them than their fathers ever were, if they ever knew them at all. Parenthood is so much more than a genetic relationship and genealogy is more than tracing that genetic tie. It shows the construct of a family. My aunt's kids are still my cousins and my grandfather's children prior to his marriage to my grandmother are still my aunt and uncle.

You're also needlessly rude, by the way. You can respectfully disagree with someone rather than saying something crappy to them.

Well, I had a great, great, great, great grandfather named Alexander Howle, who killed his father-in-law Peter Morgan by stabbing him in the thigh with a knife during an argument after coming home from church one sunday afternoon. He was sentenced to be hung, but somehow got out of jail and moved off to a different state, where he died may years later as an old man from injuries he received by being kicked by an ox. I had another great great great great grandfather named Elijah Hollis who married his first cousin, raised a family by her, but was also having relations with her younger sister and fathered a number of children by her (including my great great great grandfather); due to tension within the family, he decided to move off with his wife and relocate to another state, but in the end he missed his wife's sister and their children, and left his wife, went and got her sister, and brought her back and spent the rest of his life with her. I had several ancestors who owned slaves. One ancestor named John Rice who ran off to California to escape prosecution for making Whisky during prohibition and changed his name to Davidson; another ancestor named Robert Courington who sold the same piece of land twice to two different men and left his wife and children to start another family in a different state; but I claim them all as my ancestors, irrespective of their shortcomings or bad judgement. I wouldn't claim them unless they were my blood ancestors though. My great, great grandfather, a man named David Morgan, was orphaned when he was three years old and was bound out to a man named Irondyke, who raised him until he was grown, gave him a suit of clothers, a horse and saddle and some money and put him on the road. I don't have any Irondykes in my family tree though, even though a man by that name raised my great, great grandfather Morgan. If I had been adopted as a child, I would still want to know my real parents and their ancestors, because to me, that is where I really come from, well meaning strangers just aren't the same as blood kindred.

[la tortuga]

Well, I had a great, great, great, great grandfather named Alexander Howle, who killed his father-in-law Peter Morgan by stabbing him in the thigh with a knife during an argument after coming home from church one sunday afternoon. He was sentenced to be hung, but somehow got out of jail and moved off to a different state, where he died may years later as an old man from injuries he received by being kicked by an ox. I had another great great great great grandfather named Elijah Hollis who married his first cousin, raised a family by her, but was also having relations with her younger sister and fathered a number of children by her (including my great great great grandfather); due to tension within the family, he decided to move off with his wife and relocate to another state, but in the end he missed his wife's sister and their children, and left his wife, went and got her sister, and brought her back and spent the rest of his life with her. I had several ancestors who owned slaves, one named John Rice who ran off to California to escape prosecution for making Whisky during prohibition and changed his name to Davidson; another ancestor named Robert Courington who sold the same piece of land twice to two different men and left his wife and children to start another family in a different state; but I claim them all as my ancestors, irrespective of their shortcomings or bad judgement. I wouldn't claim them unless they were my blood ancestors though. My great, great grandfather, a man named David Morgan, was orphaned when he was three years old and was bound out to a man named Irondyke, who raised him until he was grown, gave him a suit of clothers, a horse and saddle and some money and put him on the road. I don't have any Irondykes in my family tree though, even though a man by that name raised my great, great grandfather Morgan. If I had been adopted as a child, I would still want to know my real parents and their ancestors, because to me, that is where I really come from, well meaning strangers just aren't the same as blood kindred.

I'm not saying you have to drop your genetic family when you're adopted in favor of your adopted parents. That's not right. But to accept both as different aspects of your family is an important thing, because it's what you DO when you're adopted. My cousin is still my cousin, even though he's not my uncle's son. We still have that relationship. My uncle is still my uncle, even though he's not my grandmother's son, because we have that relationship. Even though my adopted cousin James and I have no genetic tie I could never think to marry him because he is my cousin. It's not legal for me to marry him, because he's been adopted as my cousin. On paper and in my family, he's my kinsman and nothing would ever change that, even though he has a family other than my family. Then again, what cousins don't? His mother's parents aren't related to me, I'm not obligated to call his grandmother Gramma Libby. He just has a bit more of an unrelated family, is all.

You seem to have expounded on the things I listed as to why a parent was out of the picture for those kids to be adopted by one parent's spouse and exaggerate and assume that I meant that one shouldn't include horrible family members. You know who I'm related to? Marshall Applewhite, the freak who convinced several people to commit suicide so they'd be saved by the Hale-Bopp comet. Despite being the bad apple, he's in my family tree.

We're talking about adoption and step-parents, here, not ostracizing bad eggs.

[Ben Edair]

I'm not saying you have to drop your genetic family when you're adopted in favor of your adopted parents. That's not right. But to accept both as different aspects of your family is an important thing, because it's what you DO when you're adopted. My cousin is still my cousin, even though he's not my uncle's son. We still have that relationship. My uncle is still my uncle, even though he's not my grandmother's son, because we have that relationship. Even though my adopted cousin James and I have no genetic tie I could never think to marry him because he is my cousin. It's not legal for me to marry him, because he's been adopted as my cousin. On paper and in my family, he's my kinsman and nothing would ever change that, even though he has a family other than my family. Then again, what cousins don't? His mother's parents aren't related to me, I'm not obligated to call his grandmother Gramma Libby. He just has a bit more of an unrelated family, is all.

You seem to have expounded on the things I listed as to why a parent was out of the picture for those kids to be adopted by one parent's spouse and exaggerate and assume that I meant that one shouldn't include horrible family members. You know who I'm related to? Marshall Applegate, the freak who convinced several people to commit suicide so they'd be saved by the Hale-Bopp comet. Despite being the bad apple, he's in my family tree.

We're talking about adoption and step-parents, here, not ostracizing bad eggs.

But by denying the reality of the genetic relationship of a child's birth parent's in favor of the legally created adoptive parents, one is ostracizing the biological parents as if they were "bad apples" and pretending that no relationship exists, even if that relationship is one only of genetics. Those biological parents are still THE parents, regardless of adoption. Adopted children are, in a sense, somewhat like pets. We may love our pets and treat them as if they are our own children, but they will never be our true descendants nor carry our bloodline, no matter how much affection we feel toward them, even if we give them our family name.

[la tortuga]

But by denying the reality of the genetic relationship of a child's birth parent's in favor of the legally created adoptive parents, one is ostracizing the biological parents as if they were "bad apples" and pretending that no relationship exists, even if that relationship is one only of genetics. Those biological parents are still THE parents, regardless of adoption. Adopted children are, in a sense, somewhat like pets. We may love our pets and treat them as if they are our own children, but they will never be our true descendants nor carry our bloodline, no matter how much affection we feel toward them, even if we give them our family name.

What about when there is no other parent, really? Some fathers are simply sperm donors, nothing more. Either done in a lab or in the back seat of the car, the effect is the same. It's anonymous, the mother doesn't know who this person is at all. See this respect for a genetic tie, it's a two-way street. Why should a child respect something his or her father or mother did not?

To describe an adopted child as a pet is insulting, by the way. Parentless children are not sent to the pound like puppies or kittens. When you adopt a child you make a commitment beyond anything like that, you're giving them a place in a home and in the society you live in.

[Ben Gruagach]

It's pointless to try and claim that genealogy is supposed to be "really" about only bloodlines, because Ancestry.com and its family of sites (which were the whole point of this thread) include adoptive relationships already in their databases.

And as we've seen with the unfolding of this story, Ancestry.com has proven to be progressive and will be including the whole range of families out there, including same-sex couples. So arguing that only bloodlines are important is a long-lost cause.

[Ben Gruagach]

What about when there is no other parent, really? Some fathers are simply sperm donors, nothing more. Either done in a lab or in the back seat of the car, the effect is the same. It's anonymous, the mother doesn't know who this person is at all. See this respect for a genetic tie, it's a two-way street. Why should a child respect something his or her father or mother did not?

To describe an adopted child as a pet is insulting, by the way. Parentless children are not sent to the pound like puppies or kittens. When you adopt a child you make a commitment beyond anything like that, you're giving them a place in a home and in the society you live in.

Agreed. As the parent of two adopted sons I find it highly insulting to have my children referred to as somehow less than children being raised by their birth parents.

[Ben Edair]

Bloodlines are very important to the vast majority of genealogists, it is why we become interested in genealogy in the first place. Incidental occurances like adoptions, step-parents, or whatever, are certainly worth noting, but in the end, it is the actual genetic line of descent that we are interested in determining.

[~Elise~]

Bloodlines are very important to the vast majority of genealogists, it is why we become interested in genealogy in the first place. Incidental occurances like adoptions, step-parents, or whatever, are certainly worth noting, but in the end, it is the actual genetic line of descent that we are interested in determining.

I'm a genealogist and it is more than genetics to me...it is family (good, bad and ugly) adoptive, same sex--all of 'em.

Elise

[Ben Gruagach]

Bloodlines are very important to the vast majority of genealogists, it is why we become interested in genealogy in the first place. Incidental occurances like adoptions, step-parents, or whatever, are certainly worth noting, but in the end, it is the actual genetic line of descent that we are interested in determining.

Well then don't use online genealogy resources like the dominant Ancestry.com family of sites, as their databases are "tainted" with records that are not documenting bloodlines. (And the database will likely be flooded with these sorts of entries once same-sex couples are included too.)

From the responses just in this thread, I think it's not accurate that "most" genealogists are "really" interested in just bloodlines. I don't doubt that there are some who think that way, but it's clearly not the only viewpoint among genealogists. And if bloodlines really were the main reason to be doing genealogy, why would major players like the Ancestry.com family of sites be so eager to include non-bloodline entries?

[Ben Edair]

Well then don't use online genealogy resources like the dominant Ancestry.com family of sites, as their databases are "tainted" with records that are not documenting bloodlines. (And the database will likely be flooded with these sorts of entries once same-sex couples are included too.)

From the responses just in this thread, I think it's not accurate that "most" genealogists are "really" interested in just bloodlines. I don't doubt that there are some who think that way, but it's clearly not the only viewpoint among genealogists. And if bloodlines really were the main reason to be doing genealogy, why would major players like the Ancestry.com family of sites be so eager to include non-bloodline entries?

Ancestry.com is not particularly noted as being a reliable source of information among genealogists. It can be a useful tool, but it is open to the problem of anyone being able to upload anything on their database, so you can claim that you are a descendant of Napolean or Julius Caesar, and that will end up in their system. Ancestry.com and other sites like it are motivated by profit. They are a means of separating paying users from their money. You pay a fee to be able to access the information on their database, and they collect the fee. No mystery there.

[lunarkiss]

Genealogy is defined as the study of family history - a definition that is not limited to a bloodline. Ancestry.com provides a family tree with options for those not in the bloodline, but are lawfully part of the family. The original discussion wasn't whether or not these persons should be accepted into or replacing someone biologically, but whether or not they should be recognized as family on a family tree.

As has been said, Ancestry.com is a tool, not necessarily a perfect record or true account. If it's not used as a definitive source, then whether or not the software clearly showed who was an adoptive parent/stepparent/same-sex spouse/stepchild/adoptive child wouldn't be an issue.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

I think many people forget that genealogy is a tool that is used differently depending upon the purpose of the researcher. True bloodline research is point blank when dealing with certain lineages and only blood to blood is recognized. When dealing with nobility, when trying to claim certain rights or recognization, a direct bloodline is all that is accepted.

For instance there are a number of awards and medals that are due to family memebers that date from the civil war era, to claim those items one must prove a blood to blood lineage to be recognized as a legal descendent. To claim a lineage to DAR, GAR, SAR, SOC, etc require a blood to blood lineage, adoption or step-status is not recognized as valid.

Some lines will grant admission if a blood line is proven to have descended from a blood relative. For example I can gain admission to the Sons of the Confederacy (SOC) because a male of our line served when no direct male was in my blood line to serve. I can gain admission to the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) from a direct blood line descent.

Yet each of the above also require documents that prove or support marriage and birth of the line being submitted. Testiments sworn before authority may also serve as real dcuments. Yet all of them serve to prove a blood to bood line of descent.

The other side of the coin might best be described as genealogist but they are more concerned with the dynamics of a given famlily group or name. Not to say they are any more correct or incorrect in their method only focused on a different facet of it.

To the blood lineage factor step status, adoption and such is of no concern unless it be in some instances such as an unwed daughter has a child and it is adopted back into the family line. In such a scenario the blood of the father is forsaken in support of the daughter's established blood line. In an instant where the biological parents are deceased and the children adopted by siblings and / or parents of the desceased parents.

That ancestry.com allows the inclusion of all variants of genealogy does not mean one form is more accepted than another. With the rise of amatuer genealogist any company in business is going to offer some type of support to that budding group.

In some ways the differances are unshakable and one will always have a different perspective of what it is or is not based upon their purpose for doing the genealogy work to begin with. Unfortunatley, no matter how much one may argue it is not going to change the way things are viewed in that regard of Blood or not.

[Rick]

Children are produced as the result of a biological union between a man and a woman, or by combining the sex-cells extracted and artifically inseminated from them. This is the only way that children are produced. It may be discriminatory, but that is just nature. Life is not "fair", the world, nature and the universe are not morally bound by any set of ethics to be "fair" to everyone equally. No matter how much it may bother us mere mortals, that is simply how it is. We are not all clones of one another, we are each differently advantaged or disadvantaged owing to a vast number of different factors, not the least of which is genetics. All humans are not created equal. Some are short, some are tall, some are thin, some are fat, some have superior intelligence, some are intellectually deficent; some are straight, some are gay, some are asexual, some are pedophiles and some are into beastiality - different strokes for different folks, but as long as we are not all the same, we cannot expect that society, the world, nature, or even our fellow humans will all treat us the same. The fact that a genealogy website is set up to reflect the fact that children are only produced by a union of sex cells from a man and a woman is hardly a cause for concern. Of course gay couples can adopt children, that is a legal issue, but genealogy isn't dictated by legality, it is determined by genetics. Adoptive parents usually have no genetic relationship to the children they adopt. Adoption is simply a legal way for someone who is not a child's natural parent to legally assume the role of that child's parent. The law cannot change the fact that that child has no genetic relationship to the adoptive parent. Genealogists aren't particularly interested in the artificial constructs of adoption, fosterage, etc. These are mere anecdotes of an individuals upbringing. What matters to the genealogist is the actual genetic relationship, the blood heritage that is passed from one generation to the next. We all live in the real world that is not concerned with our whims and fantasies. In nature, every child has only one father and one mother, everything else is just make-believe.
I was with ya right up to that point (bolded). My adopted son IS my son. The blood, sweat and tears put into raising him were no more make-believe than that put into raising my other children.

The only thing I can see that's make-believe here is your uninformed, obviously not-first-hand opinion.

[Sequoia]

Perhaps in your own fantasies, but not in the reality of the natural universe. Adoption cannot change a person's ancestry or their genes. Genealogy is about genetics, not about the whims of people who wish to pretend to be the parents of children who are not in reality even related to them.

I can understand where you're coming from - blood genetics are not the same as family structure.

But geneology is about family, not JUST about blood.

And family, as we all know, goes far beyond blood. Especially for those who choose their family and don't necessarily have any bond with those who birthed them.


Adopted children are, in a sense, somewhat like pets. We may love our pets and treat them as if they are our own children, but they will never be our true descendants nor carry our bloodline, no matter how much affection we feel toward them, even if we give them our family name.

Fail. Children are not like pets at all - and the fact that you compare them as such shows that you must not have had children of your own... or heavens to Betsies how you must relate to them.

If I end up adopting a child one day, that child will be just as much my child as if I had given birth to them. Even if I had birth children as well.

Socio-emotional bonds don't necessarily form from blood relationships, but they are what our society is based upon.

Your point of view is highly immature... it's like the kids who told their siblings, "YOU'RE ADOPTED!!!" in an attempt to destroy their self-esteem. As though it should be some sort of insult. As though it insinuates less worth.

Most people grow out of that. I'm saddened to see that you haven't.

[David19]

Children are produced as the result of a biological union between a man and a woman, or by combining the sex-cells extracted and artifically inseminated from them. This is the only way that children are produced. It may be discriminatory, but that is just nature. Life is not "fair", the world, nature and the universe are not morally bound by any set of ethics to be "fair" to everyone equally. No matter how much it may bother us mere mortals, that is simply how it is. We are not all clones of one another, we are each differently advantaged or disadvantaged owing to a vast number of different factors, not the least of which is genetics. All humans are not created equal. Some are short, some are tall, some are thin, some are fat, some have superior intelligence, some are intellectually deficent; some are straight, some are gay, some are asexual, some are pedophiles and some are into beastiality - different strokes for different folks, but as long as we are not all the same, we cannot expect that society, the world, nature, or even our fellow humans will all treat us the same. The fact that a genealogy website is set up to reflect the fact that children are only produced by a union of sex cells from a man and a woman is hardly a cause for concern. Of course gay couples can adopt children, that is a legal issue, but genealogy isn't dictated by legality, it is determined by genetics. Adoptive parents usually have no genetic relationship to the children they adopt. Adoption is simply a legal way for someone who is not a child's natural parent to legally assume the role of that child's parent. The law cannot change the fact that that child has no genetic relationship to the adoptive parent. Genealogists aren't particularly interested in the artificial constructs of adoption, fosterage, etc. These are mere anecdotes of an individuals upbringing. What matters to the genealogist is the actual genetic relationship, the blood heritage that is passed from one generation to the next. We all live in the real world that is not concerned with our whims and fantasies. In nature, every child has only one father and one mother, everything else is just make-believe.


Perhaps in your own fantasies, but not in the reality of the natural universe. Adoption cannot change a person's ancestry or their genes. Genealogy is about genetics, not about the whims of people who wish to pretend to be the parents of children who are not in reality even related to them.

As other people have said, Genealogy is also about family relationships, and families include adopted kids, same-sex families, etc. Also, in the natural world, there is evidence that, among certain animals, at least, if some kids lose their mother, or father, another animal from some other "tribe" of that species will adopt them, taking them as their own, so, there is a lot more to family relationships than just genes and bloodlines.

[David19]

*blinks* I'll have to disagree with you, there. My uncle adopted his wife's kids when they got married and he's more of a father to them than their father was, since he's in prison. My grandfather adopted my mother and her brother when he married their mother and he's more of a father to them than their fathers ever were, if they ever knew them at all. Parenthood is so much more than a genetic relationship and genealogy is more than tracing that genetic tie. It shows the construct of a family. My aunt's kids are still my cousins and my grandfather's children prior to his marriage to my grandmother are still my aunt and uncle.

You're also needlessly rude, by the way. You can respectfully disagree with someone rather than saying something crappy to them.

QFT, exactly, family relationships are about a lot more than blood, there are some families who aren't blood related, yet are better parents, or relatives, than actual blood relations.

[David19]

But by denying the reality of the genetic relationship of a child's birth parent's in favor of the legally created adoptive parents, one is ostracizing the biological parents as if they were "bad apples" and pretending that no relationship exists, even if that relationship is one only of genetics. Those biological parents are still THE parents, regardless of adoption. Adopted children are, in a sense, somewhat like pets. We may love our pets and treat them as if they are our own children, but they will never be our true descendants nor carry our bloodline, no matter how much affection we feel toward them, even if we give them our family name.


What about when there is no other parent, really? Some fathers are simply sperm donors, nothing more. Either done in a lab or in the back seat of the car, the effect is the same. It's anonymous, the mother doesn't know who this person is at all. See this respect for a genetic tie, it's a two-way street. Why should a child respect something his or her father or mother did not?

To describe an adopted child as a pet is insulting, by the way. Parentless children are not sent to the pound like puppies or kittens. When you adopt a child you make a commitment beyond anything like that, you're giving them a place in a home and in the society you live in.

Again, I agree with la tortuga, adopted children are nothing like "pets", adoptive parents can, do, and should, love their adoptive kids like their own, some people can't naturally conceive, and so they will do anything for a kid, or kids, and when they adopt a child, they would really love them. Also, what happens if the father was a rapist, or the mother was abusive, before the kid got taken by social services, why should the kid(s) feel any kind of connection to their biological parents, just 'cause of "blood relationships", being a parent is something you have to work at every day, it's easy to get laid, and provide sperm and an egg, the hard part is actually being a good parent.

[~Elise~]

He's on a one day vacation from the site...won't be able to access until later tonight. so don't expect an answer or anything during the day.

And this is getting wayyyyy off topic. Just sayin'

Elise

[David19]

I can understand where you're coming from - blood genetics are not the same as family structure.

But geneology is about family, not JUST about blood.

And family, as we all know, goes far beyond blood. Especially for those who choose their family and don't necessarily have any bond with those who birthed them.



Fail. Children are not like pets at all - and the fact that you compare them as such shows that you must not have had children of your own... or heavens to Betsies how you must relate to them.

If I end up adopting a child one day, that child will be just as much my child as if I had given birth to them. Even if I had birth children as well.

Socio-emotional bonds don't necessarily form from blood relationships, but they are what our society is based upon.

Your point of view is highly immature... it's like the kids who told their siblings, "YOU'RE ADOPTED!!!" in an attempt to destroy their self-esteem. As though it should be some sort of insult. As though it insinuates less worth.

Most people grow out of that. I'm saddened to see that you haven't.

100% true :thumbsup:. I know the poster has been banned for a day, but, this is something that I feel strongly for, family is more than blood, yes, blood relatives are, or can be, important, but, it's not the be all and end all of what a family is, and, like I said before, there are some people who might not want anything to do with their blood relatives, whether it's due to them being abusive, or whatever. Again, like I said, it's easy to just get laid, provide some sperm, and drop an egg into a uterus, but, the hard part is actually raising the kid(s) and being a family.

[~Elise~]

See...I see both sides. I understand that for organizations like DAR, SOC and such that it is important to follow the bloodline. and that is important...but also family is more than just genetics.

My parents...they weren't really there for me. My grandparents raised me for the most part...when that ended and I moved and ended up in foster care. My second of parents there are still my parents. They were mentioned in my ceremony to Rick when family is named...my kids call them grandma and grandpa.

AND I don't give a F*() what genetics say...those are my parents. Would I claim lineage through DAR from their ancestors, no...but that doesn't decrease what rEALLY matters.

Now, would you like to know how I really feel?

Elise

[la tortuga]

See...I see both sides. I understand that for organizations like DAR, SOC and such that it is important to follow the bloodline. and that is important...but also family is more than just genetics.

My parents...they weren't really there for me. My grandparents raised me for the most part...when that ended and I moved and ended up in foster care. My second of parents there are still my parents. They were mentioned in my ceremony to Rick when family is named...my kids call them grandma and grandpa.

AND I don't give a F*() what genetics say...those are my parents. Would I claim lineage through DAR from their ancestors, no...but that doesn't decrease what rEALLY matters.

Now, would you like to know how I really feel?

Elise

:hugz: And I don't think that this topic has really been derailed too much. It shows WHY it's so important to include these relationships that are currently not in the system at ancestry.com. I'm thinking, via Ben's posts earlier, that this is going to improve? I certainly hope so.

I, too, see the importance of each side of the coin, though. I think it's important in any family tree to recognize the adopted child as the child of their adoptive parents first, then the natural parents' information second. Many adopted children don't know anything about their natural parents, and sometimes they never will. This is another problem with adoption vs. genetic parents. A lot of adopted kids have completely unrelated health problems to their adopted family and can't get a hold of their original family to find out if it's a genetic predisposition or not. Not only that, but my mother was adopted my her mother's husband, who is Dutch. Her natural father was Native American, but she can't find very much reliable information about him because the records have been pretty much steamrolled over in favor of her adopted father. Thus, when it came down to the discussion of race she couldn't say "American Indian" without documented proof, and she couldn't get any of that. But, in the end, this man was not a part of our family. I never met him, and we've found out recently that he passed away. I felt sad that my mom never really got to knew her father very well (he left when she was very little in favor of his other family), but it's nothing like I'd imagine grieving when my grandpa, her father, passes away. Family is so much more than a blood tie.

[LacyRoze]

As someone who was adopted I take extreme offense to being equated to a pet. Also, my adoptive parents are my parents. You don't have to agree with it or like it but you also have no right to say they are just pretending to be parents. There is more to being a parent that blood..

As to the OP...I fully understand that tracing a bloodline is important for a variety of reasons. Many researchers rely on that bloodline. I also happen to understand that many researchers don't particularly care about bloodlines. They just want an accurate family record and for them that includes step parents, children, adoptees, etc. How about we respect that not everyone defines geneology the same nor do they use it for the same purposes. If you're only interested in a continuing bloodline, that's fine. That's your choice. Please do not insult others who believe there's more to family than just genetics.