Family Historian User Group

Allow same sex couples.

ID:2569

This has been discussed on this site in the past and I think it was felt that this wasn't allowed in the GEDCOM standard: I haven't looked into this myself but assume this to be the case or Calico Pie would have allowed it.

I do agree though that it ought to now be made possible and I'm sure could be by using extensions tags without breaking the GEDCOM standard.

There are work-arounds that can be used at the moment such as using the 'associated person' link but it isn't really completely satisfactory.

Just because the Gedcom specification implies* that it's not allowed hasn't stopped many other programs from allowing same sex couples.

One of FH's failings is to follow the Gedcom standard too closely for it's own database structure. Gedcom is a communications specification. A good genealogy program will allow genealogists to store all the data necessary to carry out their work and not limit the data to ones designed a long time ago by an organisation whose main aim was not genealogical research.

Noting that the spec hasn't been updated since pre-history it's pretty likely that its not going to be updated for the next millenium either so either a program gets behind the times because it can't cope with social changes or it adapts. The latter preferably.

* The Gedcom spec implies it, but it doesn't actually forbid the sex to be the same in a marriage.

I am perfectly happy for FH to stick to the gedcom standard having received files from correspondents with lots of odd fields that are a real pain to sort out.

Irene

I'm afraid the pain comes because FH sticks to the standard so much that you have problems importing from other researchers. I'm not saying that other programs don't have problems (see Ancestry and Genes for their 'special' versions) but the point about the standard is that it tries to cope with many different ways that programs would store their data. That means it's got great flexibility but also many different ways of interpreting the specification.

If FH was a bit more lax about the rules especially when importing and a bit more intelligent about decoding the source of the Gedcom and working appropriately (FTM's weird occupation bug for instance) then the fact that the Gedcom came from another program wouldn't be so much trouble.

Another point about Gedcom which I keep bleating on about is that it IS a communication specification. So long as FH kept to its claim of 100% compliance with its interpretion of the Gedcom specification when exporting it wouldn't matter what it did internally so long as it maximised the data that a genealogical researcher can store and ways in which it can be manipulated to help them carry out their research. When it comes to exporting, FH can strip out as much as possible to make the output 100% Gedcom compatible. The main aim is to transfer the family tree structure. Other information can be transfered via notes if they don't follow the spec properly.

Because the Gedcom specification is fixed it's not possible to do the things like attach multimedia to places. I'm sure that some people would like to do that, but unless you throw out the specification you can't. I'm sure there are other things that new techology will provide to help the researcher, DNA for instance. Unless programs use their own format for storing genealogical data and can adapt them to cope with social and technological changes then they are going to be left by the wayside. LDS haven't amended the spec for decades, they are not looking like they will for the forseable future and no other organisation has the clout to do it. So Gedcom is here to stay with it problems but I wouldn't want a program to be get stuck with it too.

Do you know that other researchers have just as much trouble reading a Gedcom from FH. Especially if it's got extension fields in it. Many other programs only read pure Gedcom and can't handle the extensions that FH uses and complain about that.

Of the various programs I have used over the years, this is certainly the best. Instead of moaning on at length about things why don't you use the wish list if there is enough support to achieve some of the changes you want.

There is ALREADY a wish list item for this.

Single Sex Relationships


PLEASE do not post items here which already exist and simply vote for the one you want on the wish list.