Halp! D: (With an English Essay)

[K0m0d0]

;_; Okay, so I've got an English Essay Rough draft due tomorrow. The good news; it's four pages long already, but it can be seven. I need to know what else to put in it...

Below is the final rough draft version. It's what I will be taking to class tomorrow! Thank you a hundred times over, everyone- especially you, Kals. All the feedback was helpful, thought-provoking, and informative.

Quote:

Marriage

Marriage is a big concept. For years in American politics, the issue of gay marriage and what it means for society has been discussed over and over again, without much fruition for either party. But recently, more legal measures– the ban of marriage between members of the same gender in California, and the consideration of new laws to keep homosexual individuals from adopting– have enhanced the debate all over again. Currently, the state of Florida has laws in place that restrict people from adopting if they are homosexual. Utah and Mississippi have laws that prohibit “joint adoption,” or the adoption of a child by two people that are not unified by marriage. In addition, the Defense of Marriage Act states that federal government does not and will never have to recognize a gay marriage as a legal marriage in American law, and that a state does not need to treat a same-sex couple with the rights of a heterosexual marriage (even if it is not called marriage). What a family is– and what marriage is– is under great legal and social dispute. Rights are at stake, and the current hostility against homosexuals and homosexual families in today’s legal administration leads me to this request. For as long as marriage is a personal choice defined, in part if not in whole, by commitment and love, it should be removed from government administration, and replaced by a federally recognized condition of civil union; a consensual union between two adults.

What’s the Difference?

Civil unions and domestic partnerships exist in American politics today, but they are very different from marriage. Marriage is a condition recognized by federal laws all over the glove. There are rights and benefits that come with marriage– in the year 1997, the G.A.O (General Accounting Office) created a list of the federally recognized benefits that came with marriage. These 1,049 rights and benefits include or concern paying for the immigration of a spouse, the right to take off work to care for an ill spouse, social security, adoption, tax returns, and much more. Marriages are recognized in the same way with the same rights in every state of the U.S.

Civil unions are different. They’re a relatively new installation, having first appeared in American law in Vermont eight years ago– so they have a drastically different impression than the term “marriage.” Different states have radically different policies and acknowledgement of what a civil union or domestic partnership is. Georgia and Connecticut do not acknowledge civil unions or domestic partnerships at all. Six states– Utah, Nebraska, Michigan, Florida, Mississippi and Arkansas– bar adoptions by couples who are not legally married (being in a civil union does not count). With the recent pass of Proposition Eight, this means that if you are homosexual, you will never be in a legal bond with your beloved that is federally or globally recognized, and you will never be able to adopt or raise children under custody of both parents in these states.

Why Can’t They Adopt? Why Can’t They Marry?

While Florida and Nebraska are the only states with laws that specifically ban homosexuals from adopting because of their homosexuality, many other states have other requirements– a federally licensed marriage or the ban of joint adoption– that stops homosexual couples from adopting children. The primary argument to support the policy in Florida is that homosexual couples do not provide the security of a home with two heterosexual parents (though Florida does allow gay couples to become foster parents). However, this claim has been found by the American Association of Pediatrics to be incorrect. They concluded that “They grow up like any other kid. There are no data that suggest there is a special problem conveyed to those children.” “Children's play and friend choices and interests are all exactly consistent with their anatomic sex,” says Ellen C. Perrin, a MD, and a professor of pediatrics. Growing up in a homosexual family provides no threat to a child– and twice, Florida’s laws have been labeled unconstitutional.

People currently reject the prospect of marriage between same-sex couples because of religious or personal definitions of marriage. Some believe that defining a marriage as a union between a man and a woman makes it more sacred than if it were marriage only between two consenting adults that loved each other. Some believe that changing the definition of marriage we have now would open doors to other marriage practices such as bestiality and polygamy. Some believe that allowing men and women to love and behave outside of their gender damages “Christian values” in America. Others, still, believe that homosexuality is a sin that is dangerous to the society and it, and those that practice it, should not be embraced by law or the community. Even more claim that marriages that do not lead to procreation damage the sanctity of those that do. However, there is nothing about heterosexuality that ensures a marriage will be kept sacred– through commitment and monogamity– as opposed to a homosexual union. Many if not all of the values of heterosexual marriage– love, respect, and care– are transferable to homosexual marriage. Similar arguments about changing marriage, and how it would lead to polygamy and bestiality, occurred while interracial marriage was being unbanned in the south (those laws are gone, and no such thing has happened). “Christian values” about gender identity were used to keep women out of schools and businesses in early decades. Marriages are still given to those that are infertile or do not plan to have children, because marriage has separated itself from procreation a long time ago. So are any of these reasons still viable, as to denying rights to homosexuals that we give to heterosexual couples? Marriage is still a very personal thing, and everyone should have their own values, wishes, and commitments respected. However, this goes both ways– no group can fairly push their values onto another.

This is the primary reason why I propose we remove marriage as a legal institution. My proposal is to allow people to verify themselves as “married” within their own communities, values and beliefs; everyone has that right, and everyone has the right to receive equal access to these benefits.

Why Not Separate and Equal?

Making marriage and civil unions equal under state and federal law, but keeping the two definitions legally separate, is not an option. The current restraint of marriage from homosexual couples is to preserve its ‘sanctity,’ making it a morally and legally superior union because of its exclusive heterosexuality. Even if both unions in law had equal identities and rights, the two terms would still exist to hold one above the other in terms of value. Currently, in law, heterosexuals are the superior people– they enjoy heterosexual privilege, and fighting desperately to keep it. Though we can allow people to have their own marriages, we can not allow them to be discriminated in law by devaluing their loving relationships and supportive families. Separating the two will imply more than just a difference between the genders of the people involved, especially due to the motives barring homosexuals from marriage today.

Separate but equal did not work in the past, and has never worked in America’s struggle for equal opportunity. I do not think it should even be considered.

What would Marriage be then?

Marriage would then be a private, personal ceremony between consenting adults, and have no place in existing law. Anyone currently married would still be married, and also in a civil union, and still have the legal protections that came with their marriage. Homosexuals could get married, but whether or not others accept that marriage is up to them, and they can believe what they want independently from the law as long as they do not use those beliefs to harm any other person, or discriminate in a public place.

Why do I propose this, and not the flat-out acceptance of marriage between homosexuals? Because so many people get caught up on a word in this debate. They want to save it for themselves because they want it to mean something special to them. I understand that. But if it is only about the word, then this should be an acceptable compromise. The opposition I fear for this is from people that honestly want legal privilege over the homosexuals– and legal privilege implies legal superiority. I do not think we can afford to make that mistake again in American history, and I do not think we can afford to tolerate that mindset, either. As a country, we have to believe in more than division– we have to believe in unity and equal opportunity, for us and for the beautiful, natural, and universally equal relationships between all of our brothers and sisters.

So, uh, how is it? Any gramaticall errors that you see? Any point where I tripped up while writing and my grammer became flawed? I have my bibliography, yes, and I will be sticking the sources in there when it's in the final draft stages.

Anyway, my real question is; what should I talk about next? How this would change American policy? How marriage has changed in America before? What marriage was in the world before? How recognizing homosexual couples in the government affected other nations in the past? (Meaning not at all....)

And if you disagree with me, go ahead and tell me why, I do need to be able to patch any holes in this thing before it's done.

Any other comments? I've still got a final draft to make out of this. XD.  

[Skorndrick]

Well, Komo, I think you did very well. It's quite well written, thoug h few parts (only like 3) were a bit hard to understand.
I personally am opposed to gay marriage, because I am a Baptist Christian and don't beleive in it. However,I have a friend who is bisexual and my mother's best friend Tom is a homosexual who also cross-dresses. I think it really is the choice of the person, even though it's against nature and God. If you want to actually ask the opinion of that bisexual person, I suggest you ask RainAmaya. She can give you a first-person account, though I doubt it will be tonight.
Good luck! mrgreen  

[K0m0d0]

Blu_the_werecat

Well, Komo, I think you did very well. It's quite well written, thoug h few parts (only like 3) were a bit hard to understand.
I personally am opposed to gay marriage, because I am a Baptist Christian and don't beleive in it. However,I have a friend who is bisexual and my mother's best friend Tom is a homosexual who also cross-dresses. I think it really is the choice of the person, even though it's against nature and God. If you want to actually ask the opinion of that bisexual person, I suggest you ask RainAmaya. She can give you a first-person account, though I doubt it will be tonight.
Good luck! mrgreen

Thank you! X3

Oh, don't worry, I've got lots of first-person accounts of homosexuality and bisexuality at hand. :3. Ahaha, friendships do a lot. So thank you, I'm sure I can get those three parts straightened out in the peer edit session tomorrow. (Though, could you bold them for me? ;_; )

See, there's also the whole against nature and god thing... ><. I could cover that too, because there's an opposition to that as well that I have just as much belief in- but this isn't just about accepting marriage between homosexuals. If any disrespect or hostility does come from that, then, that's a social issue that can be dealt with after we make sure everyone has equal rights legally.

Did you know penguins and giraffes frequently engage in homosexual behavior? :3 Since penguins mate for life, that means the penguin is naturally homosexual and will not likely breed with a female for his entire life. And there are abandoned eggs, (When the female goes to the shore to eat, gets eaten by a seal, the male gets too hungry waiting for her and leaves the egg.) so the male couples do pick them up and hatch them....

As for god, well, I'm afraid that women's rights and the abolition of slavery go against god under biblical definition as well. ;_; So I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with you.

I really do appreciate that you came and talked with me, though, this helps me a lot to get some ideas for the next portion. D:

Anything else I might have left out that you think I need to cover?  

[Omnileech]

How could you write an essay about marriage in the United States and not include the Defense of Marriage act? confused  

[K0m0d0]

Omnileech

How could you write an essay about marriage in the United States and not include the Defense of Marriage act? confused

Hyurng, Damn. ><. Well, I've only just started. It's not done yet. (It's also a persuasive essay, though it reads like an expository essay.)

Anything specific about that you think think needs including, or just it in general? (I think I covered it's ramifications, but I didn't explain exactly that this was the defining reasons for those inter-state policies; so yes, I'll jam it in there.)  

[K0m0d0]

Okay, here's the completed rough draft;

Quote:

Marriage

Marriage is a big word nowadays. For years in American politics, the issue of gay marriage and what it means for society has been discussed over and over again, without much fruition for either party. But recently, more legal measures have been taken- the ban of marriage between members of the same gender in California, and the consideration of new laws to keep homosexual individuals from adopting- have enhanced the debate all over again. Currently, the state of Florida has laws in place that restricts a person from adopting if they are homosexual. Utah and Mississippi have laws that prohibit “joint adoption”, or the adoption of a child by two people that are not unified by marriage. In addition, the Defense of Marriage Act states that federal government does not and will never have to recognize a gay marriage as a legal marriage in American law, and that a state does not need to treat a same-sex couple with the rights of a heterosexual marriage. (Even if you don’t call it marriage.) What a family is- and what marriage is- is under great legal and social dispute in today’s debate. Rights are at stake, and the current hostility against gays and homosexual families in today’s legal administration leads me to this request. For as long as marriage is a personal choice defined, in part if not in whole, by commitment and love, it should be removed from government administration, and replaced by a federally recognized condition of civil union- a consensual union between two adults.

What’s the Difference?

Civil unions and domestic partnerships exist in American politics today, but they are very different from marriage. Marriage is a condition recognized by federal law, and in nations all around the globe. There are rights and benefits that come with marriage- in the year 1997, the G.A.O (General accounting office.) created a list of the federally recognized benefits that came with marriage. These 1,049 rights and benefits include or concern paying for the immigration of a spouse, the right to take off work to care for an ill spouse, social security, adoption, tax returns- and much more. Marriages are recognized in the same way with the same rights in every state of the U.S.

Civil unions are different. They’re a relatively new installation, having first appeared in American law in Vermont eight years ago- so they have a drastically different impression than the term “marriage”. Different states have radically different policies and acknowledgement of what a civil union or domestic partnership is. Georgia and Connecticut do not acknowledge civil unions or domestic partnerships at all. Six states- Utah, Nebraska, Michigan, Florida, Mississippi and Arkansas- bar adoptions by couples who are not legally married. (Being in a civil union does not count.) With the recent pass of Proposition Eight, this means if you are homosexual, you will never be in a legal bond with you beloved that is federally or globally recognized, and you will never be able to adopt or raise children under custody of both parents in these states.

Why Can’t They Adopt? Why can’t they Marry?

While Florida and Nebraska are the only states with laws that specifically ban homosexuals from adopting because of their homosexuality, many other states have other requirements- a federally licensed marriage or the ban of joint adopting- that stops homosexual couples from adopting children. The primary argument to support the policy in Florida is that homosexual couples do not provide the security of a home with two heterosexual parents. (Though Florida does allow gay couples to be come foster parents.) However, this claim has been found by the American Asociasion of Pediatrics to be incorrect. They concluded that “They grow up like any other kid. There are no data that suggest there is a special problem conveyed to those children”. “Children's play and friend choices and interests are all exactly consistent with their anatomic sex”, says Ellen C. Perrin, a MD, and a professor of pediatrics. Growing up in a homosexual family provides no thread to a child- and twice, Florida’s laws have been labeled unconstitutional.

People currently reject the prospect of marriage between same-sex couples because of religious or personal definitions of marriage. Some believe that defining a marriage as a union between only a man or a woman makes it more sacred than if it were marriage only between two consenting adults that loved each other. Some believe that changing the definition of marriage we have now would open doors to other marriage practices such as bestiality and polygamy. Some believe that allowing men and women to love and behave outside of their gender damages Christian values in America. Others, still, believe that Homosexuality is a sin that is dangerous to the society and it, and those that practice it, should not be embraced by law or the community. Even more claim that marriages that do not lead to procreation damage the sanctity of those that do. However, there is nothing about heterosexuality that ensures a marriage will be kept sacred- through commitment and monogamity- as opposed to a homosexual union. Many if not all of the values of heterosexual marriage- love, respect, and care- are transferable to homosexual marriage. Similar arguments about changing marriage, and how it would lead to polygamy and beastiality, occurred while interracial marriage was being unbanned in the south. (Those such laws are gone, and no such thing as happened.) Christian values about gender identity were used to keep women out of schools and businesses in early decades. Marriages are still given to those that are infertile or do not plan to have children, because marriage has separated itself from procreation a long time ago. So are any of these reasons still viable, as to denying rights to homosexuals that we give to heterosexual couples? Marriage is still a very personal thing, and everyone should have their own values, wishes, and commitments respected. However, this goes both ways- no group can fairly push their values onto another.

This is the primary reason why I propose we remove marriage as a legal institution and allow people to verify themselves as “married” within their own communities, values and beliefs. Because everyone has that right, and everyone has the right to receive equal access to these benefits.

Why Not Separate and Equal?

Making marriage and civil unions equal under state and federal law, but keeping the two definitions legally separate, is not an option. The current restraint of marriage from homosexual couples is to preserve its ‘sanctity’, making it a morally and legally superior union because of its exclusive heterosexuality. Even if both unions in law had equal identities and rights, the two terms would still exist to hold one above the other in terms of value. Currently, in law, heterosexuals are the superior people- they enjoy heterosexual privilege, and fighting desperately to keep it. Though we can allow people to have their own marriages, we can not allow them to be discriminated in law by devaluing their loving relationships and supportive families. Separating the two will imply more than just a difference between the genders of the people involved, especially due to the motives barring homosexuals from marriage today.

Separate but equal did not work in the past, and has never worked in America’s struggle for equal opportunity. I don’t think it should even be considered.

What would Marriage be then?

Marriage would then be a private, personal ceremony between consenting adults, and have no place in existing law. Anyone currently married would still be married, and also in a civil union, and still have the legal protections that came with their marriage. Homosexuals could get married, but whether or not others accept that marriage is up to them, and they can believe what they want independently from the law as long as they do not use those beliefs to harm any other person, or discriminate in a public place.
Why do I propose this, and not the flat-out acceptance of marriage between homosexuals? Because so many people get caught up on a word in this debate. They want to save it for themselves because they want it to mean something special to them. I understand that. But if it’s only about the word, then this should be an acceptable compromise. The opposition I fear for this is from people that honestly want legal privilege over the homosexuals- and legal privilege implies legal superiority. I don’t think we can afford to make that mistake again in American history, and I don’t think we can afford to tolerate that mindset, either. As a country, we have to believe in more than division- we have to believe in unity and equal opportunity, for us and for the beautiful, natural, and universally equal relationships between all of our brothers and sisters.

Hmm? Hmmmmm?

(Sorry I couldn't spend more time on the defense of marriage act, there's a seven-page limit and no real room to start up another section about it.)  

[Kalstolyn]

Kals is questing again!
I've got a few comments to make from an English Major point of view, but most of this is stuff that you will hopefully catch when you are editing your rough draft. If you've got the same errors in your final draft, you might have some problems. What grade are you in, first of all? Some of the tings I'm about to say might be explained by how old you are and how long you have been in school -- it takes time and persistence for advanced literacy skills to develop fully.

idea Rather than making a single hyphen with no space in front of it as you have in your introductory paragraph, it is grammatically correct to use two hyphens together with a space before and after -- like this -- to form a dash. Also your sentence should still make sense with the portion in between the dashes -- the interjection -- removed. "But recently, more legal measures have been taken have enhanced the debate all over again" unfortunately doesn't make too much sense, but it might make sense if you added the word "that" immediately following your interjection, or if you removed the phrase "have been taken."

idea I would consider avoiding the use of words such as "nowadays" in formal writing. I also want to point out that marriage is not just a word, it's a concept, something you may wish to incorporate into your introduction.

idea Watch your subject-pronoun agreements. "A person" is singular, and "they" is plural. One of the downfalls of the English language is that it lacks a singular neutral pronoun (besides "it). Sadly, this does not excuse using a plural pronoun for a singular subject. The most correct thing to say is "he or she" which is rather wordy, or to change the subject to plural if possible: "Florida has laws in place that restricts people from adopting if they are homosexual." Also "everyone" is actually single -- you're speaking of each individual person in the group -- and so everyone is not a they.

idea Similarly watch your verb-subject agreement: A law restricts, but laws restrict.

idea Some teachers will dock marks for using an adjective (such as "gay") as a noun in formal writing. Homosexual individuals are not "gays," they are people who are gay (this is one of my pet peeves, to be honest. To me it's on the same level as calling people with learning disabilities "retards").

idea When two sentences are more strongly connected than usual, but can't rightly be joined by using a comma, that is where a colon serves its purpose: To indicate a break stronger than a comma but not as divisive as a full stop.

idea Nations all around the globe have their own federal laws, so you really don't need the word "and" (nor the Oxford comma) in the second sentence of your second paragraph.

idea When parentheses come at the end of a sentence, the punctuation goes after the close parenthesis (otherwise that added idea is left floating by itself -- an orphan -- when really it belongs to the sentence that contains it). If parentheses come in the middle of a sentence (like this one) they don't need a period inside them, even though it feels like there should be one.

idea Try to avoid contractions in formal writing. Although they're faster, they are an informal convention and do not belong in academic writing most of the time.

idea Don't forget to keep punctuation such as commas and periods inside the quotation marks.

idea The so-called "Christian values" you speak of are not necessarily actual Christian values. I would strongly consider using quotation marks on that particular term. In this context it has very little to do with actual Christian faith. It's like saying that because a lot of people who break the law are from a certain culture, those lawbreaking values belong to that culture.

idea Your final sentence is a fragment, but you can fix that by changing the period that precedes it into a semicolon and removing the word "because"; the semicolon takes the place of the word "because" and joins the two ideas together into a concrete idea.

Overall this is a really well thought out paper and like I said, most of the problems I have with it are mechanical ones.

EDIT: Okay, I've only looked at the original first draft you posted, you put this new one up while I was typing! xd

I hope my comments are helpful to you, I don't mean to be nitpicky or mean.

Kals' Collaborative Crossword Puzzle!

PM for details!

 

[K0m0d0]

Thank you so much! ;_;! I hadn't really gone through it with a fine-toothed comb, yet, so I understand everything you've told me and I do plan to fix all of those mistakes- but really, you're a lifesaver. Those are exactly the sort of things my teacher would call me out on- so if I fix them now, I'll definitely get a better grade than I would without your help.

To answer your question, I'm in a program that allows me to take classes at a community college during my last two years of high school. This is an end-of-quarter essay for a Diversity English 101 class. So, technically, I am grade 11, but I am taking a college level course.

I'll get right back to work on this. Again, thank you. D: I definitely wouldn't have caught all of that by myself.  

[Kalstolyn]

Kals is questing again!

You're welcome! I'm glad it was helpful, it took me like 45 minutes to do that... :p I guess I should get working on my own homework now, hey?

Most of my classmates are taking an English Communication class (not me, I have advance credit from taking insane numbers of English courses in University) and have to write similar kinds of essays. I'm always surprised at the grammatical conventions that people don't know, when they seem second nature to me, but not everybody had the kinds of teachers I've had, nor the mother to back up what the teachers were teaching.

Kals' Collaborative Crossword Puzzle!

PM for details!

 

[K0m0d0]

Mmm. o__o. I wish I had super grammar powers... I do try, honestly, but when I've just finished typing and haven't gone back to look yet, it's a little horrible. I'll take everything you've said to heart, though, it really was immensely helpful. I feel bad that I was a burden.

(Learning Japanese gives me a new perspective on language, as well. Japanese grammar... is really easy, actually. So far, anywho. It's just my vocabulary that's killing me. D: )

I'll post the final rough draft up on the first post, but then I have to print it out and get ready for the peer edit tomorrow.  

[Kalstolyn]

Kals is questing again!

Looks better! I hope I presented things in a way that will help you actually learn the concepts that you're missing -- teach a man to fish and all that.

You've still got a lot of hyphens-instead-of-dashes though. The proper way to do the dash thing is illustrated above. smile You can't tell that you're doing it wrong when handwriting, but it really sticks out when you type things. It's one of those tricky bits that no one really teaches you about anymore.

It's amazing ho wmuch more aware one becomes of grammar and the structure of language in general when studying a new language, n'est-ce pas?

Kals' Collaborative Crossword Puzzle!

PM for details!

 

[K0m0d0]

Kalstolyn

Kals is questing again!

Looks better! I hope I presented things in a way that will help you actually learn the concepts that you're missing -- teach a man to fish and all that.

You've still got a lot of hyphens-instead-of-dashes though. The proper way to do the dash thing is illustrated above. smile You can't tell that you're doing it wrong when handwriting, but it really sticks out when you type things. It's one of those tricky bits that no one really teaches you about anymore.

It's amazing ho wmuch more aware one becomes of grammar and the structure of language in general when studying a new language, n'est-ce pas?

Kals' Collaborative Crossword Puzzle!

PM for details!

;_; Well, I went and inserted the special character dashes in Word. Does.. that work? I'll ask my teacher, but you're probably right.  

[Kalstolyn]

Kals is questing again!

When you type -- in Word, it turns it into a dash automagically. But you do have to have a space before and after it, it's not supposed to be attached to the word before it like you have.

Kals' Collaborative Crossword Puzzle!

PM for details!

 

[Omnileech]

K0m0d0

Omnileech

How could you write an essay about marriage in the United States and not include the Defense of Marriage act? confused

Hyurng, Damn. ><. Well, I've only just started. It's not done yet. (It's also a persuasive essay, though it reads like an expository essay.)

Anything specific about that you think think needs including, or just it in general? (I think I covered it's ramifications, but I didn't explain exactly that this was the defining reasons for those inter-state policies; so yes, I'll jam it in there.)

under the DOMA a state doesn't have to recognize a marriage from another state and the federal government absolutely does not recognize any homosexual union. The former fact is in directly contradictory to the US constitution in which laws from states must be recognized from another and means that even if states legalize gay marriage the couples still are discriminated against and have less rights.  

[Trish the Stalker]

Gah, I didn't read the entire thing and here's a big reason why (aside from the fact that it's late, I'm upset, and not very helpful): You said "Marriage is a big concept."

"Big" is a very general word and so very nondescript it's kind of a crappy opener in my eyes.

If you have time to change it to "important" or "controversial" or another word it would be far better, IMO.

Just to give yourself a better hook.

-La Belle Isolde-

My Scroll