If I were to write a thesis statement on this paragraph alone, how could I write it without sounding copycatish.
Gay marriage will greatly improve the lives of heterosexuals. It will reduce the number of divorces caused by fraudulent marriages, ensure that orphaned children grow up in stable and loving homes, raise the standard of living for children with gay parents, make neighborhoods safe for families and boost the economies of struggling communities.
Its for an english assignment I’m working on.
( I am aware that gay marriage is legal in certain countries )
That depends on if your thesis was for or against gay marriage, and whether your thesis takes the attitude in the paragraph provided at face value. There are a lot of logic problems with that paragraph, it assumes a lot of results which are illogical or over-generous at best. I can give you a break down of what might appear in a thesis that supports legalizing gay marriage but does not believe in the views above.
- The statement that is central to the thesis supports a view that I share, but tries to defend its position with assumptions and hope. Gay marriage should be legalized, but not on the basis of fanciful benefits to society that will only cause more people to view the issue with skepticism and negativity.
- There are many issues that are pertinent to gay marriage, and while most do not benefit society, they also do not in my view, as some anti-gay supporters state, reduce the state of current society. These issues are central to why gay marriage should be legalized regardless of individual desire and prejudice. Human rights afforded to all people will be equalized and there will be less open discrimination, which is understood to be a crime, but the very laws that prosecute discrimination support the discrimination of homosexual people.
- There is the problem that should we become too enthusiastic about supporting the marriage laws we fall into the trap of using false information, propaganda, and plain appeal to hope and pity that are the hallmarks of bad argument.
- There is no measure that can prove a ‘great improvement’ in lives of heterosexuals. The statement is too broad, not all heterosexuals will benefit from matters other heterosexual people will. There is no cause to say that fraudulent marriages cannot occur in a community that allows gay marriage, gay marriage is not a cure all for the mistakes of other people, and this tactic will only cause people to blame supporters of gay rights after the fact (and rights can be rolled back).
- There is no evidence to suggest gay people in general make better or worse parents. The central argument to the gay marriage issue is that homosexual people are also people and should be afforded the same rights as everyone else for loving whoever they happen to love. People are not infallible, therefore the orphans issue is an assumption, not a fact or logical conclusion.
- It would certainly raise the living standard of gay-parent families as they will have more resources due to the set up of a tax and welfare system that treats families differentially. This statement is logical and a very plausible outcome. The living standards of all gay people may well increase as well, because it may be a first step towards homosexual people being accepted into mainstream society.
- Again, there is too much assumption with regards to the last point. Gay people are people, they will not magically heal all the ills of society and that is not the argument put forward by most gay marriage supporters, rather it is a move to remove the hypocrisy that is inherent within the very system of government. Gay people contribute to taxes (public services, national defense budgets, education etc) like everyone else, but are not afforded the same rights or common courtesies. Though it is now illegal to discriminate against homosexual people, the system is refusing to let go of the last bastion of archaic law despite it being a clear breach of human rights standards.
