Hillary Clinton's Appeal to Logos

Hillary Clinton's 2011 speech on Gay Rights in Geneva emphasized 5 main points, or "questions" that she felt were the most necessary and important about LGBT issues and laws. Any official speech has to be easy to follow and understandable to account for the diversity of the audience, Clinton's speech is exactly that. She follows a very logical and thought-out approach of how to make her argument come across in a manner where the audience would have no choice but understand and agree with what she has to saw. She begins with background of LGBT/Human Rights in the past. She then leads us through 5 major questions about LGBT and progression for the implementation and support of their community and laws that support them. She ended with a powerful statement about wanting to "be on the right side of history" giving the audience something to think about; do they think the "right" side would be preventing the Human Rights of the LGBT community or is the "right" side allowing the LGBT community the rights they seem to deserve? Clinton attempts and succeeds at presenting her logical arguments with the help of a variety of appeals to logos, her main appeal being to using comparisons to other minorities. 

Like being a woman, like being a racial, religious, tribal, or ethnic minority, being LGBT does not make you less human. And that is why gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights. 

Very evident in this specific example from Hillary Clinton's speech, it is obvious that she wants to logically lead everyone to the same conclusion as her; Gays are human, therefore they deserve the human rights that everyone has in the world. Reading through this particular statement it would be difficult for someone to find a fault in the logic she presents. Clinton even addresses the other viewpoints reasoning and explanations for not allowing LGBT rights and strongly dismisses them with her evidence and logical reasoning.
Another main attribute of Clinton's speech would be her use of making a broad generalization and then having support to back it up, in the form of either examples or statistics. An example would be the following:

But progress comes from changes in laws...Many in my country thought that President Truman was making a grave error when he ordered the racial desegregation of our military. They argued that it would undermine unit cohesion. And it wasn't until he went ahead and did it that we saw how it strengthened our social fabric in ways even the supporters of the policy could not foresee.

This particular example uses  a generalization with the support of a particular example from the past. With this example from the past as a reminder of how wrong people were about desegregation, Clinton has made it clear that the same mistake is being made about the LGBT community. She uses this comparison and example to make her argument more sound because it is supported by facts in the past. The audience has been proved wrong and logically the next conclusion they would see is that they could be wrong about this situation as well.