Adoption by gays essays

Adoption by gays essays With this being an age when people are supposedly more open-minded, why is it that gays are frowned upon or denied when they want to adopt a child? Why is it that they are treated unfairly because of their sexual orientation? Many Americans are uncomfortable with the idea of gay parents. The traditional family has always included a mother and a father. However, today gay parents are heading more and more families. Many use artificial insemination or surrogate mothers because it is extremely difficult for gays to adopt children. Although it seems to contradict societys view of the traditional family, homosexuals should be allowed to adopt because they deserve equal rights, and sexual orientation is not a reasonable determining factor in the qualifications of a parent. I saw a television show the other day on this topic. A gentleman something very interesting adoption is not a right, it is a privilege. If this is the case, there is still not a rational basis for denying homosexuals the privilege to adopt. It is clearly an anti-gay basis. Just as blacks and women have fought for equal rights, gays are now struggling to do the same. It is unfair to single out a group of people with many members who would make great parents. Since we live in a world where all men are created equal, homosexuals should enjoy the same rights a heterosexuals. Gays face discrimination because of their sexual preferences, and now must also face the qualifications for adopting. In a society where families are often split apart, I think it is great that people are so willing to adopt children, but it is terrible that this one qualification is stopping o many of them. Sexual orientation alone doesnt make a person a good or bad parent. Adoption agencies need to stop using this as a factor. A family is a family, and that is what so many children are in need of. Children ne ...

Gonna, Gotta, Wanna

Gonna, Gotta, Wanna Gonna, Gotta, Wanna Gonna, Gotta, Wanna By Maeve Maddox Although not hearing impaired, I watch television with captions enabled. I like to see how words are spelled and how the running text differs from what is actually said by the actors and presenters. When I began to notice a frequency of the spelling gonna for â€Å"going to,† I decided to do a little research. I discovered that gonna has an entry in the OED: gonna: colloquial (especially U.S.) or vulgar pronunciation of â€Å"going to.† Not only gonna, but wanna, gotta, and shoulda also have entries in OED, although they do not appear in Merriam-Webster. Gonna, gotta and wanna are not contractions. Contractions are shortenings like aren’t and can’t. The missing letters have been replaced by an apostrophe, and the original words are discernible in the contraction. Contractions are acceptable in all but the most formal writing. Here are a few standard contractions: aren’t = are not can’t = cannot couldn’t =could not didn’t = did not doesn’t = does not don’t = do not hadn’t = had not hasn’t = has not haven’t = have not he’d = he had, he would he’ll = he will, he shall he’s = he is I’d = I had, I would I’ll = I will, I shall I’ve = I have isn’t = is not it’s = it is let’s = let us The spellings gonna, gotta, and wanna, on the other hand, do not preserve the shape of the words they represent. They are not contractions, but reductions. A linguistic reduction is the result of relaxed pronunciation. All speakers of all languages slur sounds and words together. Doing so is a normal part of spoken language. The more informal the situation, the more slurring goes on. Speakers who are sensitive to the needs of others will speak more carefully in some situations than in others. For example, teenagers who barely move their lips when speaking to one another may be expected to enunciate in the classroom. Courteous native speakers will take the trouble to pronounce words carefully when speaking to non-native speakers. Any English speaker who has received a formal education of ten years or more may be expected to speak clearly when being interviewed on television. Reductions are not unknown in print. Novelists have long spelled out whatcha and coulda in dialogue in order to convey a character’s attributes. Until recently, however, such spellings were not commonly seen outside of fiction. Gonna and gotta are not unexpected in song lyrics and on social media like Facebook, but now they are creeping into news coverage. Here are some examples from transcripts and quotations that have appeared on news sites: â€Å"He’s gonna get to the bottom of what happened at the Fort Hood shooting.† â€Å"I have no doubt she’s gonna run,† says Black. â€Å"We’re gonna try to construct a bipartisan bill.† Reductions heard in speech are not particularly jarring, but when they appear in print, they scream â€Å"Ignorant!† Unless a journalist desires to present a senator in a negative light, â€Å"going to† is a better choice than gonna, even in a direct quotation. Professional writers especially might be expected to avoid nonstandard usage and spelling, but the evidence on Amazon is that for many authors, gonna, gotta, wanna, and even whatcha and coulda are acceptable written English. Here’s a sampling of book titles: Dude, You’re Gonna Be a Dad! 10 Things You Gotta Know About Choosing a College I Wanna Iguana (This one is the title of a children’s book.) Whatcha Gonna Do with that Duck? Coulda Been a Cowboy Time will be the judge. An Ngram search shows that the use of gonna in printed books has risen dramatically since the 1960s, and gotta and wanna are making a little progress. It’s possible that these words will become acceptable in standard English one day. Meanwhile, their use does not reflect well on writers who wish to be taken seriously. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Style category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:Wether, Weather, WhetherProbable vs. PossibleUsing "zeitgeist" Coherently