U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-26-2014, 10:47 PM
 
731 posts, read 1,322,035 times
Reputation: 669

Advertisements

To PACUK

Thank you for answering my questions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-27-2014, 07:03 AM
 
Location: Arizona
5,597 posts, read 4,828,040 times
Reputation: 16580
Quote:
Originally Posted by PA2UK View Post
So look up the words lineage, descent, etc - they don't mention biological relations.
Parentage isn't biological? I don't see what argument you are trying to make. Common progenitor is #1 in my opinion. It is all well and good that people accept adoption as family, as they should, but they should be listed separately and not included in subsequent generations.

2 of my uncles adopted children. They are my cousins. They are part of the family history but not ancestry or genealogy in the common usage.

I hate to see PC enter into this. Where steps and others are included. The old "we are all family" line should only count in the family history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2014, 04:00 PM
 
Location: Colorado (PA at heart)
8,256 posts, read 12,891,685 times
Reputation: 10470
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkalot View Post
Parentage isn't biological?
You've never heard of adoptive parents?

Quote:
I don't see what argument you are trying to make.
My point is that adopted children are not any less of their adopted parent's children just because they are adopted and not biologically related.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parent

Note that Wikipedia defines "parent/parentage" as "a caretaker of the offspring in their own species." And that it specifies when talking about a biological parent - because there is such thing as non-biological parentage.

Quote:
Common progenitor is #1 in my opinion. It is all well and good that people accept adoption as family, as they should, but they should be listed separately and not included in subsequent generations.
I don't think you are entitled to tell other people how to build their tree. There is no "should" here. I include adoptive branches in my tree and I'm not doing anything wrong. I note the adoptions so DNA matches viewing my tree know who are biological relations and who aren't but there is no reason to "not include them in subsequent generations".

Quote:
2 of my uncles adopted children. They are my cousins. They are part of the family history but not ancestry or genealogy in the common usage.
But there's no official definition of those words that are exclusive to biology.

Quote:
I hate to see PC enter into this. Where steps and others are included. The old "we are all family" line should only count in the family history.
It's not politically correct, it's just correct. It's a fact that no definition of those words are exclusive to biology. They include the option of biology but it is not necessary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top