Hillary Clinton's Appeal to Ethos

In her speech on LGBT rights in Geneva, Hillary Clinton used numerous appeals to ethics in her speech. She establishes herself as an authority who is knowledgeable about gay issues and supportive of gay rights.

Clinton has pre-established extrinsic ethos as a member of a progressive government that does not condemn gays for their lifestyle. Clinton also establishes an intrinsic authority by acknowledging opposing viewpoints and conceding or refuting them in turn. She is aware of religious and cultural objections to gay rights, but states clearly, citing slavery as an example, that in a free country you can believe whatever you want (even if those beliefs are "denigrating" to others' humanity), but you cannot discriminate or withhold basic human rights on any basis- neither race, gender, nor sexual orientation. Acknowledging these opposing views, as well as recognizing that opposition to this sensitive issue is rooted in deeply held beliefs, shows that she is knowledgeable about the issue and has carefully considered multiple sides.

Clinton also appeals directly to her audience's sense of morality and ethics. She compares the struggle for gay rights to the struggle for racial and gender equity, stating directly that LGBT people are human, thus their rights are human rights. The audience is compelled to think of how close-minded and cruel it is to deny rights guaranteed by numerous documents. She also brings up the perspective of "being on the right side of history;" in retrospect we can see the ethical folly of sexism and racism in the past, and so if we can lean to see the same in current attitudes towards homosexuals, we can maybe bring about change sooner, with less struggle and cultural upheaval.

Clinton's main point is that no minorities deserve to be marginalized, and it is ridiculous that LGBT people are still discriminated against, as if they are somehow different. This view echoes what Dr. Franklin Kameny said in his "We Throw Down the Gauntlet" speech in 1969. Both agree that it is unethical to discriminate on the basis of race, although Clinton has a considerably more humanitarian approach, appealing to a sense of compassion as well as morality.

Clinton's use of ethos is something I find particularly compelling, especially in her understanding of different facets of the issue; her call for open discussion to resolve the issue on a large and small scale is something I can vouch for and repeat.