Queering the Family Tree

[theloniusfleabag]

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/Natio...rc=n112006A.xml

"We called the project Queering the Family Tree because we wanted to broaden the notions of what a family tree can look like and what families can look like," said Rachel Epstein, member of the Queer Parenting Initiative, as the poster was launched in the Toronto senior elementary school.

As we all should, by now, be aware that a homosexual relationship cannot, by itself, be reproductive, is it entirely honest to show a 'family tree' that is based on homosexuality?

I personally am pro-gay marriage, and have several friends that are gay, with one couple actually being married. One lesbian couple I know has a daughter, but I am pretty sure her lesbian mate isn't the father. (Unless she strapped on a turkey-baster, but even still, I'll bet it wasn't her sperm. I wonder how they can embrace the 'family tree' notion, if they only lik [sic] 'bush'.).

However, be that as it may, I what I call to question is that while homosexuals can be in a family tree, they themselves cannot reproduce another tree.

[Riverwind]

However, be that as it may, I what I call to question is that while homosexuals can be in a family tree, they themselves cannot reproduce another tree.

Hi Thelonoius,

Well, it depends whether you feel adopted children should be in a family tree. If they don't belong then some friends of mine would have a rather short tree since they don't know who their real parents are. However, it sounds like they are trying to broaden the family tree to include all people that you consider 'like family' which is not necessarily bad but you would never end up with a tree: it would look more like the 'family matrix'.

I guess I agree with you. It is one thing to ask that gay relationships be treated the same as hetrosexual relationships. It even makes sense to create a family tree that includes adoptions by gay couples, however, inventing something new and calling it a family tree is kind of silly.

[crazymf]

I don't have anything nice to say to this thread.

I wish the queers would keep to themselves. You don't see me out there feeling the need to proclaim to the world that I go to bed with a woman.

If it's so 'normal', shut the hell up about it and live your lives. Get outta my face!!

[Argus]

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/Natio...rc=n112006A.xml

"We called the project Queering the Family Tree because we wanted to broaden the notions of what a family tree can look like and what families can look like," said Rachel Epstein, member of the Queer Parenting Initiative, as the poster was launched in the Toronto senior elementary school.

As we all should, by now, be aware that a homosexual relationship cannot, by itself, be reproductive, is it entirely honest to show a 'family tree' that is based on homosexuality?

I think it's ridiculous. The whole notion behind it is absurd. The "queers" involved claim their kiddies were hurt when they couldn't show a family tree. That's absolute BS. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you don't have the same kind of famly tree as anyone else. And the same for the kid, for ultimately, every child has a father, whether they know who they are or not. And every homosexual activist has parents, siblings, grandparents, etc.

It looks to me like just another homosexual propaganda ploy, to get their books, charts and speakers into schools full of confused eight year olds and start teaching them how wonderful homosexuality and assorted accompanying transwhateverthehell it is freaks are.

[sharkman]

What must be troubling to the courts (not really) is that the child in the story was told by her lesbian parents that there was no father. There is a father and for the parents to be so dishonest regarding a foundational issue like that shows complete disregard for the child. Even if the child was adopted, the adoption agency would keep records and allow the child to meet their biological parents if they wish. To hide such information from children shows that these groups won't let silly things like the facts interfere with their indoctrination. How sad.

Redefining marriage leads to redefining parents leads to redefining families... it never ends. And making up all kinds of new terms such as 'two spirit' only further distances gay activists from the mainstream they insist on being a part of.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Sparhawk,

Hi Thelonoius,

Well, it depends whether you feel adopted children should be in a family tree.

I am an adpoted child (one of two out of seven kids) and I love my family. My parents are great (although my dad didn't remember me last time I went to visit...strokes, dementia etc.) and I am proud to have the family name. I do realize, though, that should I have children, I won't be spreading the family genes, just the name. Kind of kooky when I think about it.

As Argus states,

The "queers" involved claim their kiddies were hurt when they couldn't show a family tree. That's absolute BS. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you don't have the same kind of famly tree as anyone else.

(I am not in agreement with the tone, just the facts) that honesty must be a part of acceptance. If someone's family tree is a stump, as it were, it is that which should be realized and accepted, and I feel it is somewhat dishonest to show it as something else.

I am happy that the people who adopted me did so, and think that adoption is a wonderful thing. Now that I am older, and own a business (with my wife) we have made charitable donations (of services) to a Christian adoption group in Calgary. While I am not religous, I feel that what they do is a good thing, and feel it warranted my support. I personally would rather see organized religion spend money and effort on these ventures, rather than on new churches, etc.

[Riverwind]

I won't be spreading the family genes, just the name. Kind of kooky when I think about it.

Well, you will be spreading the family values which is likely more important than the genes as far as your adoptive parents are concerned.

[szkw1]

Well, it depends whether you feel adopted children should be in a family tree.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Our family tree includes a few orphans and adopted people. Their names are listed on the tree with the notation that they were adopted.

The family tree is/was supposed to show blood lineage.

A child born to a lesbain deffinitely belongs on her family tree as there is a bloodline there.

[Laelius]

Family tree's should ultimately stay the same except for one modification stating that the child was adopted. I forsee no problem in allowing Homosexuals to have a family tree and on the family tree state they are the same sex. But once they decide they think it is allright for two people of the same sex to adopt a child and claim it as their own "genetically" that is wrong and worse for the childs upbringing and could potentially lead to psychological problems, stemming from when they go to family education in school or peers or even a rough handed teacher.

[YankAbroad]

what I call to question is that while homosexuals can be in a family tree, they themselves cannot reproduce another tree

I was surprised to read this -- last time I checked, this homosexual's "baby making equipment" was in working order. . .

Redefining marriage leads to redefining parents leads to redefining families... it never ends.

How does the way that other people define themselves impact you -- directly or indirectly?

It looks to me like just another homosexual propaganda ploy, to get their books, charts and speakers into schools full of confused eight year olds

I find that eight-year-olds are generally rather UNconfused about things like family relationships and the various sorts of people who are out there -- they become more confused with time when they have rigid ideologies, either Politically "Correct" or religious mysticism, imposed upon them to deny that the round earth they're seeing really exists!

[geoffrey]

This is tough. Very tough.

If its in the child's interest, go for it. I'd hate to see any of these children adopted by homosexuals further, for the lack of a better word, confused... don't go saying that they don't have a mom or a dad though. This is a complete lie, and its going to leave that child more confused into the future.

I worry when thought like this is raised. Family trees were indeed to show blood lineage, but really blood lineage is becoming less and less of an issue in our society. More and more we see people that don't know their parent/parents.

Adoption is a wonderful thing, it shows a very responsible and conscienious thought by the parents who have given the child up for adoption, and a wonderful act of kindness, generousity and compassion by the adopting parents. Generally, in my experience, I find that adoptive parents are some the best parents out there, and I would never question their authority to raise a child.

When a child is raised by homosexual adoptive parents however, those lines begin to blur. I am a firm believer that children need a mother and a father to be raised. There are aspects of both roles that are essiential to a childs development. That is more of my issue with the homosexual adoption process.

[Riverwind]

When a child is raised by homosexual adoptive parents however, those lines begin to blur. I am a firm believer that children need a mother and a father to be raised. There are aspects of both roles that are essiential to a childs development. That is more of my issue with the homosexual adoption process.

You must remember that homosexual adoption is only really an issue because one partner wants the other to adopt her/his biological child. This is very important to homosexual couples because without the ability to adopt, their partner has absolutely no rights regarding the children if something happens to the biological parent.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear YankAbroad,

I was surprised to read this -- last time I checked, this homosexual's "baby making equipment" was in working order. . .

The point is that if your sexual partner is of the same gender as you, it is impossible to 'make babies', only 'whoopee'.

they become more confused with time when they have rigid ideologies, either Politically "Correct" or religious mysticism,

This bit is very true.

My point overall was that, while I am in favour of gay marriage, some definitions are being misrepresented in exercises like this.

[YankAbroad]

The point is that if your sexual partner is of the same gender as you, it is impossible to 'make babies', only 'whoopee'.

Oh sure, but that's assuming that sexual partners are the only way to make babies. Lesbians with turkey basters have done wonders.

[betsy]

Dear Sparhawk,

Hi Thelonoius,

Well, it depends whether you feel adopted children should be in a family tree.

I am an adpoted child (one of two out of seven kids) and I love my family. My parents are great (although my dad didn't remember me last time I went to visit...strokes, dementia etc.) and I am proud to have the family name. I do realize, though, that should I have children, I won't be spreading the family genes, just the name. Kind of kooky when I think about it.

As Argus states,

The "queers" involved claim their kiddies were hurt when they couldn't show a family tree. That's absolute BS. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you don't have the same kind of famly tree as anyone else.

(I am not in agreement with the tone, just the facts) that honesty must be a part of acceptance. If someone's family tree is a stump, as it were, it is that which should be realized and accepted, and I feel it is somewhat dishonest to show it as something else.

I am happy that the people who adopted me did so, and think that adoption is a wonderful thing. Now that I am older, and own a business (with my wife) we have made charitable donations (of services) to a Christian adoption group in Calgary. While I am not religous, I feel that what they do is a good thing, and feel it warranted my support. I personally would rather see organized religion spend money and effort on these ventures, rather than on new churches, etc.

Were you adopted by a gay couple? Just curious.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear betsy,

Were you adopted by a gay couple? Just curious.

Bi-curious? No, my adoptive paretns aren't gay. Actually, they are as traditional as you can get. My dad is a WWII veteran, then he worked for gov't for the rest of his career. My mom stayed at home and raised seven kids, and only went to work because she wanted to, when I (the last of the seven) was in my teens.

[moderateamericain]

Dear betsy,

Were you adopted by a gay couple? Just curious.

Bi-curious? No, my adoptive paretns aren't gay. Actually, they are as traditional as you can get. My dad is a WWII veteran, then he worked for gov't for the rest of his career. My mom stayed at home and raised seven kids, and only went to work because she wanted to, when I (the last of the seven) was in my teens.

I dont really care if you put the child of a gay couple into the family tree or not. What the hell would that matter to me? say 2 gay men have a daugher via artifical means. and I and there daughter end up getting engaged, am i gonna break it off because you have "GAY" genes. PFFFTT NO! :lol

[Melanie_]

I'm teaching a course right now on challenges children and families face (divorce, blended families, single parenting, etc.) and gave this article to the class today. The biggest concern they had was with the word "queer", as they felt it wasn't respectful of gay and lesbian families and gave a negative connotation. We had some discussion about how students felt about the other words, and what age group they felt the poster was appropriate for (general consensus was middle school to high school), but no real problems with the idea of same sex parenting. I'm ordering a poster for the next time!

Thanks for the article, T-Bag!

[Charles Anthony]

The biggest concern they had was with the word "queer", as they felt it wasn't respectful of gay and lesbian families and gave a negative connotation.

I find it interesting that children usually see adult issues in simple terms. They have an easier time focussing on things that matter most.

I am a firm believer that children need a mother and a father to be raised. There are aspects of both roles that are essiential to a childs development.

I agree that would be ideal but I would rather a child be adopted instead of a ward of the state.

Our family tree includes a few orphans and adopted people. Their names are listed on the tree with the notation that they were adopted.

The family tree is/was supposed to show blood lineage.

That sounds callous.

I won't be spreading the family genes, just the name. Kind of kooky when I think about it.

Well, you will be spreading the family values which is likely more important than the genes as far as your adoptive parents are concerned.

Maybe but maybe not.

Some people are hell-bent on spreading their genes. I know one couple who has already spent $60,000 in the past year to do so through laboratory means. They have not yet given up.

What must be troubling to the courts (not really) is that the child in the story was told by her lesbian parents that there was no father.

I do not accept this argument at all.

It reminds me of a Margaret Laurence novel (are any of them any different from eachother?) whereby an unwed mother has just given birth in the hospital. The new mother wants to know if her child is healthy and the nurses want to fill out forms. They ask the name of the child's father and the mother refuses to answer.

Regardless of the situation, I do not believe children have a right to know their genetics. It is a ridiculous demand. If a man is not present raising a child, too bad. It dishonors the sacrifice of motherhood to violate her privacy in this matter.

There is a father and for the parents to be so dishonest regarding a foundational issue like that shows complete disregard for the child. Even if the child was adopted, the adoption agency would keep records and allow the child to meet their biological parents if they wish. To hide such information from children shows that these groups won't let silly things like the facts interfere with their indoctrination. How sad.

I disagree and I believe you are naive. Are you open to the possibility that some women lie about who their child's father actually happens to be?

Are you open to the possibility that it may be to the child's best interest that such truth never be told?

I am also reminded of a comical tune from the Barbadoes of which there are many versions. The premise of the tune is that a young man brings girls home to meet his parents and with each one, his father pulls him aside and tells him that the girl is actually his half-sister. The boy gets fed up and tells his mother. Here is the punch-line:

Shame And Scandal In The Family

He went to his mama and covered his head

And told his mama what his papa had said

His mama she laughed, she say, "Go man, go

Your daddy ain't your daddy, but your daddy don't know."

I believe that the art of geneology and the concept of family trees will go by the wayside (along with the civil concept of marriage too) because people see them as either too inclusive or too exclusive. Eventually, it will become impractical as a tool much like asking "How much does a car cost?" is impossible to address. When there were only Model-T's around, it was an easy question to answer.

[Liam]

I am also reminded of a comical tune from the Barbadoes of which there are many versions. The premise of the tune is that a young man brings girls home to meet his parents and with each one, his father pulls him aside and tells him that the girl is actually his half-sister. The boy gets fed up and tells his mother. Here is the punch-line:

Shame And Scandal In The Family

He went to his mama and covered his head

And told his mama what his papa had said

His mama she laughed, she say, "Go man, go

Your daddy ain't your daddy, but your daddy don't know."

Thanks for posting those lyrics -- awesome!

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

Regardless of the situation, I do not believe children have a right to know their genetics. It is a ridiculous demand. If a man is not present raising a child, too bad. It dishonors the sacrifice of motherhood to violate her privacy in this matter.

This is a question virtually every adopted child faces. "Do I search out my real parents?" One of the main reasons, apart from curiosity, is genetics. What runs in the family? Brain cancer? Dwarfism? Mental retardation? Am I going to father the next 'elephant man'? Did every male in the line die at 40, or live to 100?

None of these things really mattered to me, and I had no desire to seek out my birth parents, but many do. It is set up now to be respectful of the birth parent's rights, so they must agree to have their names made available should someone come looking. I would say that this is a fair system.

My own adoptive mother asked me If I had looked for, or would I consider looking for, my birth parents. I told her 'No', I had no desire to do so. In my mind, I would almost see it as some sort of betrayal, for my adoptive parents raised me with the same love and care that I could ever have hoped for from any parents. At the same time, I would admit some curiosity, and trepidation, on my part. Would it be worth it? I am happy with my life as it is, (and I belong to "The Church of Shit Happens", with my diocese being "Our Lady of Perpetual Cynicism") so it would be difficult for me to imagine a benefit from the endeavour.

[cybercoma]

A family tree should show a scientific genetic history of a person. If the child is not genetically yours, it doesn't belong in your family tree. I'm sorry but that's a bit ridiculous.

[Charles Anthony]

A family tree should show a scientific genetic history of a person.

A butterfly collection should probably show the same sort of scientific organization.

I think both have outlived their practicality and attraction.

This is a question virtually every adopted child faces. "Do I search out my real parents?"

I am not adopted so I can not know what it is like. I want to have a lot of empathy for such mysteries. The closest shoes into which I may step are questioning my own family tree. My father just learned that one of his uncles moved to California about a century ago. I do not know my newfound cousins at all but I am very interested. The quest is not rational but I am profoundly intrigued.

One of the main reasons, apart from curiosity, is genetics. What runs in the family? Brain cancer? Dwarfism? Mental retardation? Am I going to father the next 'elephant man'? Did every male in the line die at 40, or live to 100?

Interestingly, those are modern day problems. There are many places in the world that would still believe in hocus pocus explanations for congenital anomalies.

It is set up now to be respectful of the birth parent's rights, so they must agree to have their names made available should someone come looking. I would say that this is a fair system.

I agree.

My own adoptive mother asked me If I had looked for, or would I consider looking for, my birth parents. I told her 'No', I had no desire to do so.

You should be proud. If I was adopted, I would want to know my birth parents.

I would also hope that I had the discipline to never seek my birth parents if it might risk breaking the hearts of my adoptive family.

At the same time, I would admit some curiosity, and trepidation, on my part. Would it be worth it?

It might not. Let us consider a possible scenario:

- you meet your adoptive mother

- you look exactly like her

- you ask her about your father

- she frowns and says: "I do not know."

- you ask her about her parents

- she frowns and says: "I do not know. I was a ward of the state."

What then? [i trust that you understand I do not mean to be heartless or demeaning with this example.]

I am happy with my life as it is, (and I belong to "The Church of Shit Happens", with my diocese being "Our Lady of Perpetual Cynicism") so it would be difficult for me to imagine a benefit from the endeavour.

Would you like to form an ecumenical movement?

[August1991]

Random thoughts on this thread.

First, in the past, many children were raised in families without a mother or a father because of an early death of one or the other if not both. Aunts, uncles, older siblings all became surrogate parents. (A visit to any cemetery and attention to dates will demonstrate this.) The Ozzie Nelson family dates from the 1950s.

Second, the longest family trees exist for European royalty and they have numerous deliberate inaccuracies. For a variety of reasons, true parentage (often the father but possibly the mother) was concealed. "Queering" the family tree is hardly a new phenomenon.

Third, a genetic family tree is a different matter. I think this will raise more complex questions in the future as we understand better the human genome. I can understand the curiousity of an adopted child to learn of the tendencies of related family.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

- you ask her about your father

- she frowns and says: "I do not know."

- you ask her about her parents

- she frowns and says: "I do not know. I was a ward of the state."

What then? [i trust that you understand I do not mean to be heartless or demeaning with this example.]

No worries, I certainly don't consider you heartless or demeaning, and sometimes truth itself can simply be callous. That is why I started my church. (Hint: it goes with my signature)

What if my birth mother said any of the following;

-your father was one of exactly 950 sailors...

-I don't know who your father was, I was really drunk at the time

-your father was my father too...we call our family line 'our incestry'...

-your father was a nice stranger who traded a ride to bingo...

(the last one is close to a true story, I once dated a girl whose mother had sex with an aquaintance of hers in exchange for a ride to bingo)

Still, though, I would like to think that even these answers would not change who I was, so if my curiosity were satisfied, it would be a gain.

As August1991 states,

the longest family trees exist for European royalty and they have numerous deliberate inaccuracies. For a variety of reasons, true parentage (often the father but possibly the mother) was concealed. "Queering" the family tree is hardly a new phenomenon

with most reasons for it to protect power and inheritance money. Most of the Royal Families in Europe from the UK to Russia are related. Names used to mean not just something, but everything. Having a 'Von' or a 'Van' as a prefix to your surname often meant money, power and/or opportunity...

Third, a genetic family tree is a different matter.

I suppose this was my entire point. A botanist could not be tracing the genetic line of a family of ferns, and put a banana tree in the same planter, saying "That nice momma fern took in that banana seed and raised it as it's own. I'll include it in the lineage, though it cannot procreate another fern."

I suppose family trees should include adopted children, whether of gay parents or not, but a caveat (or asterisk) should accompany it.