I have a question -- from an LDS standpoint -- a gay couple would never be sealed (guess someone could "lie" them in) or have children sealed to them (unless things changed for one of them). So why not just link children to biological or adoptive parents, whichever case if known (or as unknown), who are not gay? What about children of sperm donors, known or unknown? Some children (of sperm donors) have found their biological fathers. I have read of actual cases. And then there are the rare cases of surrogate mothers. These are all very interesting genealogical questions. Just wondering........ Trudy

In a message dated 5/28/2005 7:43:39 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time, FHB39@cs.com writes: Rather than trying to delete the unwanted UNKNOWN as the husband tag...have any of you tried bring up the edit individual template and where the name is listed as UNKNOWN just change it to NONE??? Fran Having no father is called "Immaculate Conception." Having a father you do not know or do not wish to recognize, seems to fit the concept of "Unknown." But computers are really stupid and you can fool them in many ways.

The recent discussion regarding non-existent spouses inspired me to make an experiment, and it worked. I have one individual with two out of wedlock children and of course PAF automatically entered an unknown spouse. Where the date of marriage has to be entered I typed "Unmarried", and instead of typing the name of a spouse I put "No Spouse". This now shows up quite clearly. Of course, the programme threw a little 'wobbly', but the details now clearly show that this woman was a single mother. She did marry about ten years later and I have recorded this in the "other marriage" option. Jennifer MacPherson N.Z. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.2.0 - Release Date: 5/27/2005

In a message dated 5/27/2005 5:14:33 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, sm999@tiscali.co.uk writes: * If in either of the two scenarios above, both adoptive parents are of the same sex - and this can only be a most modern and current innovation practised currently in limited jurisdictions - and the family wish to record the two same sex individuals as parents - bearing in mind there will be no natural children, The way it appears to me is that same sex marriages should have perfectly good ancestry charts, but their descendency charts would be really messed up.

I beg to differ. I am a guardian father to my son, and he also has a biological father. He and I are NOT spouses or even on speaking terms. We are not forced to enter a marriage entry. IF we put in a marriage entry and do not know one of the spouses it does put UNKNOWN in the family view, but not in the database so it does not come out in reports. I can not think of a cases where I have marriage information date/place/etc. and do not Know any part of the either one of their names. So I don't create the marriage record so it does not put UNKNOWN in there. Alan Jones Mission Viejo, Calif. -----Original Message----- From: Dick Cazier [mailto:dcazier@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 11:07 PM To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay marriages in PAF--LDS content By virtue of the way PAF is configured, any time an individual has children listed, the person has to have a "spouse." If the spouse is not known and listed by name, PAF inserts the spouse as Unknown, but does not assign a RIN number to that unknown person. The only way to deal with this situation is to open the Marriage screen and, instead of entering a marriage date, enter the words "Never Married." PAF will accept this. It will tell you that you have entered a non-standard date, but will accept and record it when you save. To show that the woman did not have these children illegitimately, you can handle the parent relationship as showing the children as adopted. Adding notes to the marriage screen and the mother's individual screen should help explain the situation. From the standpoint of answering the Genealogy definitions listed below, it does nothing to clarify #s 1 & 2. These deal with the biological aspects, which it appears in you situation to not be know. But, in regards to # 3, the family history, it should fully explain how these children fit into the family. Dick Cazier Lakewood, Colorado USA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Whitcomb" <alan.whitcomb@gmail.com> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay marriages in PAF--LDS content > On 5/28/05, ETM <etm1935@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Well I could suggest that my niece give the kids >> back to the foundling home that got rid of them, >> but I think that's a bit harsh. However, she >> isn't married, probably doesn't intend to marry, >> didn't personally have these illegitimate >> children, and the inability to remove that UNKNOWN >> husband tag is an annoyance. >> > > So if I understand you correctly, your real problem the inability to > remove > UNKNOWN from the husband tag? I am almost 100% sure we all have UNKNOWN > family. I know that your niece´s choices in life may have caused you > heartache, and being a single mother is not an easy life choice. > > > Genealogy is by definition: > > > 1. A record or table of the descent of a person, family, or group from > an ancestor or ancestors; a family tree. > 2. Direct descent from an ancestor; lineage or pedigree. > 3. The study or investigation of ancestry and family histories. > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > RootsWeb's WorldConnect Project: > Connecting the World One GEDCOM at a Time > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/ > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List Search http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=PAF-5-USERS

Hey, I really really really want to know how others have advised people to record this in their records. I am totally committed to the concept and principle of 1 man and 1 woman, BUT we have innocent children who get raised by loving parents who happen to be gay. As those children are grown and marry (lets say heterosexual) and have their own children, how can we help those people? I guess I was hoping to much to have people stay out of the political/moral/preachy/rant and rave mode. I won't make the mistake again on this list. Alan Jones Mission Viejo, Calif. -----Original Message----- From: Kenneth Guilette [mailto:KGuilette@netzero.com] Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:07 PM To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay marriages in PAF--LDS content Linda When a person begins a post with - "I am not raising the moral or political issues of gay marriage, please don't address that arena." It seems to me that he knows exactly what he is attempting to have addressed and how people will react. I'm surprised you took the bait. Regards, Ken Guilette South Barrington, IL ----- Original Message ----- From: Linda To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 1:58 PM Subject: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay marriages in PAF--LDS content Richard, I'm sorry you feel I was so "LDS-biased". In accordance with Alan's initial comments, I tried as much as possible not to give my post a moral or political twist. However, the fact is that PAF *IS* the software program the Church has created and provides free for members to gather their family history and submit names for ordinance work. ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List Archives http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/PAF-5-USERS/

Thanks, Cheryl, and all the other kind souls who have worked this through with me. I also am a registered user of Legacy, and they provided the following instructions which work: "Go to Options > Customize > Data Format and select to leave the Word for Blank Records as blank. "You can also indicate 'this person was never married' on the Individual Information window." Elaine Hello singhals On Saturday, May 28, 2005, you wrote > Ummm, it kinda sounds as if the rest you > haven't discovered the > back-door here, so ... > Genealogy starts with YOU and goes backward. > If you do your data-entry > the same way, some of these problems vanish magically. (g) > It is possible to add individual (Shay S > 'Adopted/) as an INDIVIDUAL! > Then you can click on her and say "add > Parent" and it will allow you to > add anyone in the database as a parent (Singh > L. /person/), does not > create a marriage record and often doesn't > even show "Unknown" in the > spouse slot. > OTOH, there does not appear to be a way to > then add a spouse for Singh > without getting Shay attached to that spouse /or/ creating a "2nd > marriage" situation. > Thing is, as someone else mentions, the data-model for PAF is > Husband-Wife-kiddlies, just as I-10 goes from > FL to Calif; if you want > to go to Chicago, you've gotta change > freeways somewhere around > Mississippi, because there's no chance I-10 > is gonna change its route to > be accommodating. If PAF's data-model is > consistently failing you, it > may be time to change programs ... perhaps to one which is NOT > lineage-linked (TMG is event-linked, for > instance) would be more > flexible and meet more of your current needs. > Cheryl

Hello all, I've been busy with a product that delivers a simple API for genealogy (SAG). If you are interested in reviewing, commenting, helping out please visit the projects homepage at: http://www.manorrock.com/products/sag/ Note it is an open source project hosted on Sourceforge, please help me out. Currently this API is used in another product under development, PAF4J, so you can actually see how well it works. For the PAF4J product which is still under development go to its homepage at: http://paf4j.manorrock.com/ Kind regards, Manfred Riem mriem@manorrock.org http://www.manorrock.org/

Rather than trying to delete the unwanted UNKNOWN as the husband tag...have any of you tried bring up the edit individual template and where the name is listed as UNKNOWN just change it to NONE??? Fran

Ummm, it kinda sounds as if the rest you haven't discovered the back-door here, so ... Genealogy starts with YOU and goes backward. If you do your data-entry the same way, some of these problems vanish magically. (g) It is possible to add individual (Shay S 'Adopted/) as an INDIVIDUAL! Then you can click on her and say "add Parent" and it will allow you to add anyone in the database as a parent (Singh L. /person/), does not create a marriage record and often doesn't even show "Unknown" in the spouse slot. OTOH, there does not appear to be a way to then add a spouse for Singh without getting Shay attached to that spouse /or/ creating a "2nd marriage" situation. Thing is, as someone else mentions, the data-model for PAF is Husband-Wife-kiddlies, just as I-10 goes from FL to Calif; if you want to go to Chicago, you've gotta change freeways somewhere around Mississippi, because there's no chance I-10 is gonna change its route to be accommodating. If PAF's data-model is consistently failing you, it may be time to change programs ... perhaps to one which is NOT lineage-linked (TMG is event-linked, for instance) would be more flexible and meet more of your current needs. Cheryl Linda wrote: > Elaine, > > I think your case is one of those extreme exceptions, perfectly > legitimate but not fitting any pre-existing template. How about > creating a person for the father figure, named "Not Yet Known" or some > variation? The program does not care what is put in as a name. And for > all we know, either in this life or the next, your niece may find an > eternal companion who will be a father to her children. So his name is > "not yet known", rather than the pointing finger "Unknown". > Unfortunately, the term 'unknown' was probably used only to indicate > that the program did not yet have the information on the person's > identity, but because there are so many real life situations where the > biological fathers are not known, it comes across in a more negative > manner. > > Best wishes to your niece who has opened her heart and home to these > children. Even with 2 parents it's not easy to take on the challenges > often attendant with adoptions. (All 3 of my kids are adopted.) She > will surely be blessed. > > Linda > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "ETM" <etm1935@yahoo.com> > To: "Linda" <geneamarm@if.rmci.net> > Cc: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 7:58 PM > Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay marriages in PAF--LDS content > > >> Well I could suggest that my niece give the kids >> back to the foundling home that got rid of them, >> but I think that's a bit harsh. However, she >> isn't married, probably doesn't intend to marry, >> didn't personally have these illegitimate >> children, and the inability to remove that UNKNOWN >> husband tag is an annoyance. >> >> I am doing a "family" tree, so adoptions are in it >> big-time. I am not doing a biological *only* >> blood line hand-me-down some money or title >> inheritance tree <smile>. >> >> Linda, I did not take offense. I have NO idea how >> or if I can forcibly get rid of "unknown" when >> there are adoptions by a single parent, male or >> female. But it would be nicer than that ugly >> condemning finger that seems to point out that >> something is wrong or missing (and I suppose it is >> for the LDS). I guess I primarily think that >> precisely because I am not preparing a biological >> bloodline database. So I am frustrated and tagged >> on to this thread for that reason. >> >> Of course, as I said, she cold give the foundlings >> back and see if a traditional family picks them up >> and then I wouldn't have this problem. Ah, now, I >> am getting bitter with my frustration over the >> issue. I'll look around to see if any other >> programs accommodate these new modern parental >> associations. >> >> Elaine >> >> Research: What I'm doing, when I don't know >> what I'm doing. >> >> Hello Linda >> >> On Friday, May 27, 2005, you wrote >> >>> Elaine, >> >> >>> I regret that my remarks may have in some way >>> offended you. That was not my >>> intent. PAF is an excellent program, >>> although other programs have some >>> features that I wish were also incorporated >>> in PAF. There is no reason for >>> you to change your use of a genealogy program >>> simply because you are not >>> LDS. The program can be used equally well by >>> both members and non-members. >> >> >>> Stewart Millar in another post has some >>> excellent suggestions for dealing >>> with non-traditional genealogical issues. >> >> >>> Linda >> >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ETM" <etm1935@yahoo.com> >>> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> >>> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 4:45 PM >>> Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay >>> marriages in PAF--LDS content >> >> >> >>>> I am not LDS but have always enjoyed using the >>>> program. So the question wasn't totally >>>> unreasonable since I feel certain there are many >>>> here like me and that I am not the only unchurched >>>> member on board this mailing list. >>>> >>>> I use other programs as well, but have always used >>>> PAF as my main program, perhaps I should make some >>>> adjustments. >>>> >>>> Elaine >>>> >> >> > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > PAF-5-USERS Mailing List > http://www.ausbdm.org/p5uindex.php > >

PAF or a genealogy program with the limitations of PAF may be best for LDS content. The best genealogy program for _family history_ allows multiple chapters. Any individual or topic entered like an individual can be included in a book saved as PDF. Editing every report in a word processor is too much work and direct printouts may have unsuitable wording. Problem with domestic or business partnerships or blended families is trying to fit them into a single PAF report limited to descendants or ancestors of the starting individual. PAF is limited to the same relationship of a child to a mother and father but it _allows_ multiple sets of parents with BIOLOGICAL relationships. In a test file from a PAF list participant, children had a bio relationship to the father's second spouse but an adoptive relationship to the bio mother's second spouse. The relationships intended by the owner of the original test file were lost in a GEDCOM transfer to a different genealogy program. Some genealogy programs report children with one common parent as "siblings" rather than half-siblings. Some report children with one common grandparent as first cousins, though most researchers _expect_ first cousins to have two common grandparents.

I have been able to add two parents of the same gender, one biological and one adopted, or two adopted, and it prints correctly from the childs' point of view on individual summaries, IF you select the Show All Parents option or Multiple Parent Indicators. The FGS only shows the 'primary' adoptive parent, with indicators and a special notes section regarding the multiple parents. Hopes this helps everyone trying to document multiple parent situations of any type - another difficult one is sequential adoptions of the same child (who may end up with two 'legal' fathers, etc). Regina Barry * rmbarry1066@earthlink.net * http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~rbarry4145/index.htm

On 5/28/05, ETM <etm1935@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Well I could suggest that my niece give the kids > back to the foundling home that got rid of them, > but I think that's a bit harsh. However, she > isn't married, probably doesn't intend to marry, > didn't personally have these illegitimate > children, and the inability to remove that UNKNOWN > husband tag is an annoyance. > So if I understand you correctly, your real problem the inability to remove UNKNOWN from the husband tag? I am almost 100% sure we all have UNKNOWN family. I know that your niece´s choices in life may have caused you heartache, and being a single mother is not an easy life choice. Genealogy is by definition: 1. A record or table of the descent of a person, family, or group from an ancestor or ancestors; a family tree. 2. Direct descent from an ancestor; lineage or pedigree. 3. The study or investigation of ancestry and family histories.

If you go into your program & check the MRIN list, does it list the actual name of "UNKNOWN" along with your niece? If so, you can always delete the marriage & re-enter it thus: 1. add spouse 2. <unknown> 3. add <link> the children back Then if you check the MRIN list, no name will appear in the 'husband' column. You can then edit the marriage by stating "Not married" or "Single parent" in the date field. (The "Not married" phrase doesn't get a warning - 'The date you typed is not standard,' whereas "Single parent" does get it.) In the Family View, it still lists spouse as UNKNOWN; but in order to have children, per se, you must have a marriage. To get to the MRIN list, click on <Search> <Marriage List...> (As opposed to the RIN list: <Search> <Individual List...>) ----- Original Message ----- From: "ETM" <etm1935@yahoo.com> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 1:10 AM Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay marriages in PAF--LDS content | Adoptions are frequent in my family. I am not | researching a bloodline, I am documenting a | family. My niece's two sons are members of my | family. They are the children of a single parent | and that's precisely the way I want to enter it in | a genealogy program. She doesn't have an | "unknown" husband. She never had a husband. She | may or may not ever have a husband, if she does, I | will enter him in the program. She is a single | parent who applied, qualified under the rules, and | adopted two children. Is that so difficult for a | program to handle? | | Elaine

Oh... I understand. May have another idea for you. I just tried it and it looks pretty good - no unknown. Go to print. Then click on books. Select your starting person, etc. In the bottom right hand side click in print to file. Save the report on your computer as an .rtf file. Then send this file to the person. They can read it with their word processor. Hope this helps a bit. Take care - Emma In a message dated 5/28/2005 1:04:13 AM Central Standard Time, etm1935@netzero.com writes: I generally share in pdf format. I guess that is really why I have pursued this. It's big, plain and ugly there. Elaine

Just a quick comment. If you physically type in something in that field then it will show up in reports. If you just let the system insert the "unknown" it won't show up in reports. BUT... if you physically type in the word "unknown" it will show up in reports. <sigh>.... Confusing isn't it. I learned this when I made the mistake of actually typing in the word of unknown one time...<g>. Take care - Emma In a message dated 5/28/2005 12:36:26 AM Central Standard Time, geneamarm@if.rmci.net writes: I think your case is one of those extreme exceptions, perfectly legitimate but not fitting any pre-existing template. How about creating a person for the father figure, named "Not Yet Known" or some variation? The program does not care what is put in as a name. And for all we know, either in this life or the next, your niece may find an eternal companion who will be a father to her children. So his name is "not yet known", rather than the pointing finger "Unknown". Unfortunately, the term 'unknown' was probably used only to indicate that the program did not yet have the information on the person's identity, but because there are so many real life situations where the biological fathers are not known, it comes across in a more negative manner.

Actually, when you think about it all of us are researching a family. We really have no total guarantee of bloodlines. When we find a family in the 1860 census and 3 children under the age of 10 have been added since the 1850 census we assume that they are children of that husband and wife. That may or may not be true. Friends and family died and often families took in children who had been orphaned and raised them as their own. I think that most genealogy programs were originally written to reflect traditional family arrangements - husband, wife, and children. That isn't really true any more and perhaps gradually various programs will move to allow more flexibility in family setups. But... until that happens we will need to work around it. I too have such situations in my family. It is not that unusual now for a single person to adopt a child. Nor is it unusual now for someone to have a child and not be married. I too tested the printouts and the word unknown doesn't show up in printed reports. So that won't be a concern. And then I place any desired explanation in the notes. Take care - Emma In a message dated 5/28/2005 12:11:25 AM Central Standard Time, etm1935@yahoo.com writes: Adoptions are frequent in my family. I am not researching a bloodline, I am documenting a family. My niece's two sons are members of my family. They are the children of a single parent and that's precisely the way I want to enter it in a genealogy program. She doesn't have an "unknown" husband. She never had a husband. She may or may not ever have a husband, if she does, I will enter him in the program. She is a single parent who applied, qualified under the rules, and adopted two children. Is that so difficult for a program to handle? Elaine

I realise I can be drummed out for continuing this variation on the above topic as it does not directly impact on PAF - other than, for LDS members who do submit data from PAF to the IGI (via submissions for temple work), I have registered an enquiry with the family search helpdesk but with no reply yet after a couple of weeks. The problem is this ----- PAF recorded data with full British shire county names (Oxfordshire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire etc.) ---- when automatically transferred from PAF to TempleReady continue to show the full "shire" names on printed cards for the temple --- but when the entries appear in the IGI, the "shire" suffix has been truncated. Perversely, this only occurs in the shire counties that also have a county town of the same name, creating maximum confusion in the place name as recorded in the IGI --- for example, does the entry stating "Oxford" refer to the city of Oxford or the county of Oxfordshire --- similar problems for Lincoln/Lincolnshire, Nottingham/Nottinghamshire, Pembroke/Pembrokeshire etc. This does not happen for shire counties that do not have a similarly named county town, for example - Hampshire, Wiltshire - which appear in full on the IGI. I have to say I have only noticed this after 20+ years of using the IGI - I used to think of it as merely inattention to detail on the part of mainly submissions from the US - but this is universal editing on the IGI as far as I can see and has happened to my own submissions. Anyone got an idea why the IGI has got this apparently so wrong. Regards, Stewart

I am astounded at the controversy generated by this topic - as most of it completely misses the point - there is no moral code embodied in the use of PAF - PAF is a system for recording our genealogical history. I have just tried linking spouses of the same sex in Legacy - and that is also barred - I would imagine it is a very common condition in most genealogical software. Unless I am missing something - I am sure it is the same in the US as elsewhere in the world - two people of the same sex cannot produce children. PAF essentially records our biological descendancy - parents that are male and female whether married or unmarried - there is an "adoptive" option for parents that are also designated as male and female. There are several adoption scenarios: * One of the parents is a biological parent to the children and are respectively male and female --- in such cases I believe the child can validly research their adoptive and/or biological line depending where they have the greatest filial association. * Both of the parents are adoptive and are respectively male and female - similarly, the child can follow the biological or adoptive line based on whichever line there is a close filial association with - or indeed both. * If in either of the two scenarios above, both adoptive parents are of the same sex - and this can only be a most modern and current innovation practised currently in limited jurisdictions - and the family wish to record the two same sex individuals as parents - bearing in mind there will be no natural children, this is going to be a minute fraction of a percentage of any body's genealogy and will never appear in most peoples genealogy - the solution would be to create two separate PAF databases, one for each adoptive "parent" with appropriate notes to record the process and linkage between both databases. One of these databases would be designated to continue the descendancy of the children and the other to continue the ancestry of one of the designated adoptive parents. And of course, the ancestry of the biological parents, if required, can continue to be maintained on the "main" database that carries the descendancy of the children. There is absolutely no link between this functionality in PAF and the beliefs and practices of the LDS church. Of course, this is only my view . . . . . . . . Regards, Stewart

Adoptions are frequent in my family. I am not researching a bloodline, I am documenting a family. My niece's two sons are members of my family. They are the children of a single parent and that's precisely the way I want to enter it in a genealogy program. She doesn't have an "unknown" husband. She never had a husband. She may or may not ever have a husband, if she does, I will enter him in the program. She is a single parent who applied, qualified under the rules, and adopted two children. Is that so difficult for a program to handle? Elaine If the police arrest a mime, do they tell him he has the right to remain silent? Hello Alan On Saturday, May 28, 2005, you wrote > On 5/28/05, ETM <etm1935@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Well I could suggest that my niece give the kids >> back to the foundling home that got rid of them, >> but I think that's a bit harsh. However, she >> isn't married, probably doesn't intend to marry, >> didn't personally have these illegitimate >> children, and the inability to remove that UNKNOWN >> husband tag is an annoyance. >> > So if I understand you correctly, your real > problem the inability to remove > UNKNOWN from the husband tag? I am almost > 100% sure we all have UNKNOWN > family. I know that your niece´s choices in > life may have caused you > heartache, and being a single mother is not an easy life choice. > Genealogy is by definition: > 1. A record or table of the descent of a > person, family, or group from > an ancestor or ancestors; a family tree. > 2. Direct descent from an ancestor; lineage or pedigree. > 3. The study or investigation of ancestry and family histories.