whowell <[email protected]> wrote: > > In my mind genealogy is not practiced as a form of moral judgment. > > Genealogy is not the problem. The problem is people who set > > themselves up as God in judgment after a voyeuristic research of > > dates. > > > > P. S. My mother would have been scandalized, too, if that was her > > situation. > > > > [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan) > > I'm not sure I quite understand what you're implying.....are you > suggesting that genealogy/genealogists are a version of voyeurism? > Or, are suggesting that those who attempt to interpret and pass > judgment upon the facts gathered via genealogical research are the > voyeurs? The latter as in looking for juicy tidbits. > As far as the question asked in an earlier post: "One of my sons > was married at 17 and it lasted less than a year. Was it a "roll in > the hay" or is it genealogy? My advice to my clients would be > dependent upon whether or not their were offspring. If not, I'd be > comfortable in overlooking it. If there were offspring, then it > would definitely be a genealogical fact and must be included in a > family line. There were no offspring. My thought is that it is a legal fact and there is no harm (in my mind) in including. Is a marriage license different from just living together? I think so. Some people think failure to tell the whole truth, unless asked the right questions, is lying. I simply presume people ask only what they want to know. Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)