Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

Aristotle described three types of rhetoric, ethos, logos and pathos. According to Aristotle, rhetoric is "the ability, in each particular case, to see the available means of persuasion." In his article "Conservative Case for Gay Marriage," author Andrew Sullivan does a great job of persuading his conservative target audience because he effectively leverages all three rhetoric techniques.

For Aristotle, the writers' ethos meant the degree of credibility or trustworthiness that authors establish with the audience through their writing. Sullivan uses the tool of ethos in several ways. He brings up the fact that he is gay so he has a lot of credibility when he talks about gay feelings and the difficulties gay people encounter in a world that shuns them. He appeals to government authorities in Canada, the Netherlands and Belgium who support the marital rights for gays and lesbians. Sullivan also appeals to popular support when he talks about how the majority of people 30 and younger see gay marriage as inevitable and understandable. Sullivan creates the picture that the world has changed and is now ready to embrace gay marriage.

Logos persuades the reader through the powers of reasoning. Sullivan's discussion of religion and gay marriage represents a powerful use of logos. He states that, although the Roman Catholic Church opposes remarriage after divorce, it doesn't seek to make civil divorce and remarriage illegal for everyone. Thus, he effectively reasons that various religious groups can choose to endorse same-sex marriage or not as they see fit, but they should not seek to prevent gays from being treated equally under civil law. Sullivan also mentions that conservatives are right to embrace the importance of marriage for fostering responsibility, commitment and the domestication of unruly men, and reasons that applying this same institution to gay men and women will bring about the same positive results. This is a highly successful use of logos because it directly appeals to the conservative viewpoints of marriage, but merely extends it use to the gay subculture.

Lastly, pathos persuades audiences by arousing the emotions. This is where Sullivan truly shines in meeting his goal of gaining the compassion of conservatives. In particular, Sullivan's reliance on personally experienced pain is very real and heart wrenching. On growing up gay and trying to envision his future, Sullivan states, "I could never have a marriage, never have a family, never be a full and equal part of the weddings and relationships and holidays that give families structure and meaning. When I looked forward, I saw nothing but emptiness and loneliness." He then goes on to argue that gay marriage will give adolescents and young adults the stability and social support they need in their relationships. Sullivan's subsequent comments are an emotional outcry of how important this is. He explains, "Many heterosexuals, I suspect, simply don't realize how big a deal this is. They have never doubted that one day they could marry the person they love."