11 ms·

The LDS was also strong in producing the GEDCOM data standard, which is widely (almost universally) used for family tree exchanges And of course, since they ar

by rmc 14y ago

The LDS was also strong in producing the GEDCOM data standard, which is widely (almost universally) used for family tree exchanges And of course, since they are bigots, they don't let 2 men be married in their GEDCOM standard, or other non-traditional family structures. Get your politics out of standards.

resplin 14y ago
Calling people bigots does nothing to promote civil discourse about important issues such as homosexual marriage. The standard was drafted in 1984, long before efforts to redefine marriage. It isn't very fair of you to project your 21st century politics back on the creators of a 30 year old standard. You apply the label of bigotry to exclude from the conversation those who differ in opinion from you. That isn't how democracies are designed to function. Nor does it recognize the complexity of the issue. Religious people can desire a standard of public morality without espousing hatred for those who don't share that standard. Calling that bigotry makes it harder to identify true prejudice.
- wpietri 14y ago
  Aw, that's precious. Defending the Mormons against charges of bigotry by saying it's the gay rights people who were trying to redefine marriage. coughpolygamycough And you're talking as if marriage hasn't been under rolling redefinition since Gutenberg. Women owning property, being allowed to have a profession, and having the right to vote changed marriage way more than allowing two women to get hitched and have babies. Also, I don't think the campaign against gay marriage can be anything but bigotry. It's exactly analogous to the campaign against interracial marriage: Religious actors try to use the power of the state to stop people from doing something they think is icky. And they're doing it on the basic of intrinsic characteristics, and with absolutely zero demonstration of harm to anybody. Irrational devotion to prejudice against a group is precisely bigotry.
  - resplin 14y ago
    You citing a number of examples of marriage evolving and being redefined only serves to clarify how the process is continuing today and how people of all backgrounds have an interest in those issues. Your demeaning tone and labels doesn't serve your supposedly tolerant position. I agree that everyone should be treated with respect and decency. But I also believe that there is a standard for morality that should be honored in order to promote the greatest mutual happiness. Advocating a standard of public morality in marriage is the same as in drug control, pornography, hate speech, or any other area. We might have different opinions on what standard will bring the most happiness. We don't have to agree, but mutual respect smooths the democratic processes around reconciling those differences. We are a bit off topic here, so I'll stop derailing the conversation.
    - wpietri 14y ago
      I believe everybody should be treated with respect and decency. Just as long as they are behaving respectfully and decently, and perhaps a little past. But you know what? Trying to keep loving couples from getting married and having kids is not even vaguely respectful. The whole, "I'm going do what I can to keep you from having your civil rights, but don't be mean to me" thing is dumbfounding to me. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from having your fee-fees hurt. Suppose I got a referendum passed that banned the Mormon Church: meetings are forbidden, Mormon marriages are nullified, and the feds start tearing down the churches. Can you honestly say that the appropriate response is a quiet, "Oh, pardon me, perhaps you could reconsider?"
    - rmc 14y ago
      We don't have to agree, but mutual respect smooths the democratic processes around reconciling those differences. Nope. I do not respect a believe that my love life, and my relationships are some how inferior and "not as good" as different sex relationships. My humanity is not up for debate.
- jivatmanx 14y ago
  Black people didn't have full rights in the Mormon church until 1978. In 1984 it was presumably still a controversial decision.
  - dorian-graph 14y ago
    What exactly do you mean by 'rights' and what were they lacking?
    - jivatmanx 14y ago
      Primarily, accepting blacks into the priesthood. Prior to 1978 they were banned.
      - gergles 14y ago
        It's important to note that "the priesthood" in the Mormon faith is every adult male[1]; so by not permitting Blacks into the priesthood, they were basically not permitted in the church at all. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_(LDS_Church) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_(LDS_Church)
        dorian-graph 14y ago
        > so by not permitting Blacks into the priesthood, they were basically not permitted in the church at all. That is a wild and incorrect jump to make. Why do Mormons go to church? What are you referencing the physical buildings used or something else? The thing is, often people will say that Mormons are racist towards blacks until 1978 and if you ask why they usually don't know. Sometimes, they'll reference the Priesthood and if you ask what that is, they usually don't know. From your comment, unless your answers to my questions indicate otherwise, I would say you do not understand. There is so much that people do not understand in regards to this topic yet they feel valid to proclaim others as being racist.
        rmc 14y ago
- rmc 14y ago
  But they are bigots. Listen, I'm sorry that their feelings are hurt when I point out that their mantain a policy of bigotry against LGB people, but tough. That's how democracy works. You have the right to say what you want, but not the right to say what you want without people pointing it out. Y'know what hurts me more? The fact that I can't get married. Marriage has been redefined many times since 1984. In my country (Ireland), divorce was impossible/illegal. Times change, adapt.
dmckeon 14y ago
Not my politics nor bigotry, thank you. I'm just thankful that some entity came up with a generally usable standard, rather than 20+ competitors in the software market all rolling their own incompatible or non-exportable data store. I haven't checked recently, but for a while there was one vendor marketing family tree software in big box stores that used a proprietary and non-exportable data format. People would buy the simple package, work on their tree, and want to migrate, only to be put off by: "you'll have to re-enter your data." As for non-support of non-traditional family structures, I'm not surprised that a conservative religious entity motivated by research into historical vital records tends to focus on the typical needs for its own users. Many of the rest of the user population benefit from a generally usable (and I'll agree, imperfect) data standard, without which this field would be less interesting and less profitable. There are a bunch of challenges for software developers in regard to traditional family structures of many kinds, generally showing that real life is often more complicated than simple tree-oriented data-structures might suggest. Divorce & step-parents are fairly well handled, but consider how to store, display, & represent explicit and implicit relationships among: unmarried persons living together adoptive parents egg donors surrogate mothers I expect that software and standards will evolve as real life does, but I don't expect the LDS to be putting their effort into areas that they likely do not see as benefitting them, or that they see as controversial for many of their members. On the other hand, an entrepreneur could produce a set of patches or extensions to GEDCOM that addressed the more complicated areas, and provided export into and import from GEDCOM or an extended format.
GnarfGnarf 14y ago
You are incorrect - GEDCOM supports same-sex marriage, there is nothing that prevents the recording of same-sex partners. You are confused with Personal Ancestral File, the Church's free genealogy program, which does not allow the entry of same-sex marriage. Many other programs do, and can export these marriages to GEDCOM.
- rmc 14y ago
  Honestly, I haven't looked into it too much. However I have seen several references to it not supporting same sex marriage ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEDCOM#Support_for_varying_definitions_of_families_and_relationships http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEDCOM#Support_for_varying_defi... ).
Evbn 14y ago
There is a wonderful StackOverow post about the problem of cycles in family trees.
- rmc 14y ago
  It can happen without incestuous relationships. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Im_My_Own_Grandpa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Im_My_Own_Grandpa
mseebach2 14y ago
Since it won't be producing offspring, homosexual marriage is fairly irrelevant for the purposes of genealogy.
- rmc 14y ago
  Firstly, many users don't just use genealogy software to track their DNA ancestors, people use it to record details of their family tree. If a relative died without leaving any offspring, that person isn't deleted from the tree, they are still there. Likewise, people may want to record same sex marriage in their family trees, even though there might not be any off spring. People in same sex marriages might want to track their own family trees. A man might want to include his mother and his mother-in-law (his husband's mother). Secondly, yes, some same sex marriages can produce children. From adoption, to artificial insemination/surrogacy, to one partner having a child(ren) from a previous marriage, which the other adopts, etc. Thirdly, it is possible to have genetic children from a same sex marriage. Some countries have gender recognition law which allows trans people to legally change their gender and get a new birth cert. Depending on the law, they may still be in the original marriage, and still legally have children. (Yes there are people who start living as a different gender and their spouse still loves them and stays with them.) Yes, these are new issues, and a lot of genealogy deals with stuff in the past, but this is only going to get more common as time passes. Blanket statements saying essentially "This is nothing to ever be worried about at all" is false. (As an aside, bisexuals et al. can enter into same sex marriages, it not just 'homosexual marriage')

by rmc 14y ago

resplin 14y ago

Calling people bigots does nothing to promote civil discourse about important issues such as homosexual marriage. The standard was drafted in 1984, long before efforts to redefine marriage. It isn't very fair of you to project your 21st century politics back on the creators of a 30 year old standard. You apply the label of bigotry to exclude from the conversation those who differ in opinion from you. That isn't how democracies are designed to function. Nor does it recognize the complexity of the issue. Religious people can desire a standard of public morality without espousing hatred for those who don't share that standard. Calling that bigotry makes it harder to identify true prejudice.

wpietri 14y ago
Aw, that's precious. Defending the Mormons against charges of bigotry by saying it's the gay rights people who were trying to redefine marriage. coughpolygamycough And you're talking as if marriage hasn't been under rolling redefinition since Gutenberg. Women owning property, being allowed to have a profession, and having the right to vote changed marriage way more than allowing two women to get hitched and have babies. Also, I don't think the campaign against gay marriage can be anything but bigotry. It's exactly analogous to the campaign against interracial marriage: Religious actors try to use the power of the state to stop people from doing something they think is icky. And they're doing it on the basic of intrinsic characteristics, and with absolutely zero demonstration of harm to anybody. Irrational devotion to prejudice against a group is precisely bigotry.
- resplin 14y ago
  You citing a number of examples of marriage evolving and being redefined only serves to clarify how the process is continuing today and how people of all backgrounds have an interest in those issues. Your demeaning tone and labels doesn't serve your supposedly tolerant position. I agree that everyone should be treated with respect and decency. But I also believe that there is a standard for morality that should be honored in order to promote the greatest mutual happiness. Advocating a standard of public morality in marriage is the same as in drug control, pornography, hate speech, or any other area. We might have different opinions on what standard will bring the most happiness. We don't have to agree, but mutual respect smooths the democratic processes around reconciling those differences. We are a bit off topic here, so I'll stop derailing the conversation.
  - wpietri 14y ago
    I believe everybody should be treated with respect and decency. Just as long as they are behaving respectfully and decently, and perhaps a little past. But you know what? Trying to keep loving couples from getting married and having kids is not even vaguely respectful. The whole, "I'm going do what I can to keep you from having your civil rights, but don't be mean to me" thing is dumbfounding to me. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from having your fee-fees hurt. Suppose I got a referendum passed that banned the Mormon Church: meetings are forbidden, Mormon marriages are nullified, and the feds start tearing down the churches. Can you honestly say that the appropriate response is a quiet, "Oh, pardon me, perhaps you could reconsider?"
  - rmc 14y ago
    We don't have to agree, but mutual respect smooths the democratic processes around reconciling those differences. Nope. I do not respect a believe that my love life, and my relationships are some how inferior and "not as good" as different sex relationships. My humanity is not up for debate.
jivatmanx 14y ago
Black people didn't have full rights in the Mormon church until 1978. In 1984 it was presumably still a controversial decision.
- dorian-graph 14y ago
  What exactly do you mean by 'rights' and what were they lacking?
  - jivatmanx 14y ago
    Primarily, accepting blacks into the priesthood. Prior to 1978 they were banned.
    - gergles 14y ago
      It's important to note that "the priesthood" in the Mormon faith is every adult male[1]; so by not permitting Blacks into the priesthood, they were basically not permitted in the church at all. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_(LDS_Church) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_(LDS_Church)
      - dorian-graph 14y ago
        > so by not permitting Blacks into the priesthood, they were basically not permitted in the church at all. That is a wild and incorrect jump to make. Why do Mormons go to church? What are you referencing the physical buildings used or something else? The thing is, often people will say that Mormons are racist towards blacks until 1978 and if you ask why they usually don't know. Sometimes, they'll reference the Priesthood and if you ask what that is, they usually don't know. From your comment, unless your answers to my questions indicate otherwise, I would say you do not understand. There is so much that people do not understand in regards to this topic yet they feel valid to proclaim others as being racist.
        rmc 14y ago
rmc 14y ago
But they are bigots. Listen, I'm sorry that their feelings are hurt when I point out that their mantain a policy of bigotry against LGB people, but tough. That's how democracy works. You have the right to say what you want, but not the right to say what you want without people pointing it out. Y'know what hurts me more? The fact that I can't get married. Marriage has been redefined many times since 1984. In my country (Ireland), divorce was impossible/illegal. Times change, adapt.

dmckeon 14y ago

Not my politics nor bigotry, thank you. I'm just thankful that some entity came up with a generally usable standard, rather than 20+ competitors in the software market all rolling their own incompatible or non-exportable data store. I haven't checked recently, but for a while there was one vendor marketing family tree software in big box stores that used a proprietary and non-exportable data format. People would buy the simple package, work on their tree, and want to migrate, only to be put off by: "you'll have to re-enter your data." As for non-support of non-traditional family structures, I'm not surprised that a conservative religious entity motivated by research into historical vital records tends to focus on the typical needs for its own users. Many of the rest of the user population benefit from a generally usable (and I'll agree, imperfect) data standard, without which this field would be less interesting and less profitable. There are a bunch of challenges for software developers in regard to traditional family structures of many kinds, generally showing that real life is often more complicated than simple tree-oriented data-structures might suggest. Divorce & step-parents are fairly well handled, but consider how to store, display, & represent explicit and implicit relationships among: unmarried persons living together adoptive parents egg donors surrogate mothers I expect that software and standards will evolve as real life does, but I don't expect the LDS to be putting their effort into areas that they likely do not see as benefitting them, or that they see as controversial for many of their members. On the other hand, an entrepreneur could produce a set of patches or extensions to GEDCOM that addressed the more complicated areas, and provided export into and import from GEDCOM or an extended format.

GnarfGnarf 14y ago

You are incorrect - GEDCOM supports same-sex marriage, there is nothing that prevents the recording of same-sex partners. You are confused with Personal Ancestral File, the Church's free genealogy program, which does not allow the entry of same-sex marriage. Many other programs do, and can export these marriages to GEDCOM.

rmc 14y ago
Honestly, I haven't looked into it too much. However I have seen several references to it not supporting same sex marriage ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEDCOM#Support_for_varying_definitions_of_families_and_relationships http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEDCOM#Support_for_varying_defi... ).

Evbn 14y ago

There is a wonderful StackOverow post about the problem of cycles in family trees.

rmc 14y ago
It can happen without incestuous relationships. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Im_My_Own_Grandpa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Im_My_Own_Grandpa

mseebach2 14y ago

Since it won't be producing offspring, homosexual marriage is fairly irrelevant for the purposes of genealogy.

rmc 14y ago
Firstly, many users don't just use genealogy software to track their DNA ancestors, people use it to record details of their family tree. If a relative died without leaving any offspring, that person isn't deleted from the tree, they are still there. Likewise, people may want to record same sex marriage in their family trees, even though there might not be any off spring. People in same sex marriages might want to track their own family trees. A man might want to include his mother and his mother-in-law (his husband's mother). Secondly, yes, some same sex marriages can produce children. From adoption, to artificial insemination/surrogacy, to one partner having a child(ren) from a previous marriage, which the other adopts, etc. Thirdly, it is possible to have genetic children from a same sex marriage. Some countries have gender recognition law which allows trans people to legally change their gender and get a new birth cert. Depending on the law, they may still be in the original marriage, and still legally have children. (Yes there are people who start living as a different gender and their spouse still loves them and stays with them.) Yes, these are new issues, and a lot of genealogy deals with stuff in the past, but this is only going to get more common as time passes. Blanket statements saying essentially "This is nothing to ever be worried about at all" is false. (As an aside, bisexuals et al. can enter into same sex marriages, it not just 'homosexual marriage')