Needs a Title
Same sex marriage has been legalized in over twenty countries including the United States, however with a growing amount of people accepting the LGBTQ+ community, the rise of countries banning and not accepting this has grown as well. When someone is told who they can and cannot date is something that no human should have to hear. People can not be changed into someone they are not just because another person does not believe in what they see.
Throughout history, the world has seen numerous changes from war and government control. However in today’s society where there is no longer too much fighting and debate over who owns what land, we fight for the rights of hundreds of thousands of people. All though the United States was not the first, the biggest up-rise of debate was the months leading up to and the day of June 26th, 2015 when the United States Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage was legal. Knowing that the worlds largest super power has ruled that same sex marriage is legal, many people would assume most foreign countries would follow.
I believe that just because humans love someone who is of the same sex, they can not be changed and should not be changed. These people are born this way and that is something that can not be changed within their brains even if people try. When a heterosexual person is born and grows up, that person knows that they are heterosexual, which is the same for a person is homosexual. I understand that is most western countries, including places such as Yemen and Iraq, there are very strict religions about being a homosexual. But for a country to create a law to kill someone for being homosexual is just upright unethical and inhumane for society.
Whether a person is heterosexual or homosexual, a person should be able to love who they want when they want despite a law saying they can’t or a religion that is holding them back. Super countries such as the United States should not be holding back about problems in third world countries, but trying to push regulations through the United Nations and create laws that would help protect people from being hurt or killed.
I have to say I agree with your assessment, Valcom. Your conclusion is bland. My sadder conclusion is that the rest of your essay is also bland. Fortunately, I can help you solve that problem.
You’ve missed the VERY ESSENTIAL component of an Op-Ed that it must arise from a particular and specific piece of news: a bit of legislation, a new scientific breakthrough, a peer-reviewed study, some poll results. The more specific the news, the better, and for good reason.
Lacking a narrow focus, an essay on a topic as broad as same-sex marriage (you include dating, you include gender identity, you include religious prohibitions in the ALREADY broad topic) will ALWAYS be bland because it relies on general proclamations and platitudes like “people should be allowed to be who they are,” and “it’s wrong to kill people for who they love.”
These are true. But they will not serve your goal of proving a small but essential truth (which is all we can do in 1000 words).
The most recent US news about same-sex marriage is already a couple of years old, since the Supreme Court ruling you yourself cited.
But, there is LGBTQ news all the time. You can exercise your own point of view by reacting to a much more current wave of acceptance/resistance if you accept the challenge:
The project will require more work than adding more paragraphs of general observations to your Draft, but it will start out stronger from the very beginning if it engages your readers in an anecdotal narrative of contemporary importance.
And as such it would stand an actual chance of being published in a daily newspaper, which is the goal of this assignment.
Does this answer your question, Valcom? And do you accept the challenge and assitance? I will not abandon you in your effort if you continue to ask for feedback.
Before I answer your question about how you ended your Op-Ed, may I make some observatoins about your Introduction? There are Failures for Grammar here (violations of the 13 Bottom-Line Grammar Rules) and style choices I’d like to recommend.
—Regarding conjunctive adverbs (you don’t know what to call them, only when to recognize them) like however, therefore, nonetheless, and others, they are punctuated with a semicolon and a comma: including the United States; however, with a growing . . . .
—People can be counted, so they are treated as a Count Noun (Rule 5): with a growing number of people . . . .
—Unclear antecedent “this” needs clarity. Does it refer to legalization or growing acceptance, or the LGBTQ+ community?
—Your sentence structure forces us to read “When is something no human should hear.”
—Rule 4. Your pronoun “someone” is singular and therefore can’t be paired with “they” cannot date because “they” is plural. The same rule applies to People (plural) and someone (singular).
I’m not suggesting you adopt these new sentences; they may not suit you; they may not be the best way to start your essay; but I needed to show you the several problems so you’ll be on the lookout for them in the rest of your work. (Pardon the interruption 🙂 )
Thank you for the feedback, now that I finally got my account access back after this past weekend I am going to make edits to everything this weekend ! I personally thought that the whole thing was a little bland but was afraid to admit it.
I personally do not like how I finished the Op-Ed off. Is their anything I can do to fix it? I feel like it lacks detail and or is very bland.