A Speech Using the Rogerian Style of Argumentation
Legalization of Homosexual Marriages
Homosexual marriages are institutions which within the past few years have gained popularity in many parts of the world. The individuals who are pro-homosexual marriages have presented their arguments for it. Some of them include the kind of environment within which one was brought up, among others such as biological factors. Their reasons have been well understood, though I among others, who are opposed to it, would like to draw their attention to why we are against these kinds of marriages. One of the most obvious reasons is that this is a society in which people are used to opposite sex marriages. Homosexual couples relating like opposite sex couples openly are likely to make other people uncomfortable. Besides, these couples usually adopt children who are trained to accept that both their parents are of the same sex.
This factor may mentally torture the children, since they interact daily with other children who are raised by parents of opposite sex. The fact that these children are raised by such parents may also affect their relationships with their colleagues of opposite sex. If for the benefit of such children, gay couples would consent to raising no children, then their quest for legalization of their rights would be considered. Their rights would also be taken into consideration if they agreed to keep their behaviors which may make the public uncomfortable, strictly private. This in essence would be way uncomfortable as compared to adopting to different sex marriages.
Effectiveness of the Rogerian Style of argumentation
I have used the Rogerian style of argumentation before, especially in verbal arguments. As compared to all other styles of argumentation, this is the most effective. This is because the opposing party never feels totally at loss (Kate, 2005). Besides, it makes warring parties ready to listen to each other, as well as making it easier for either party to take into consideration the views of their opponents (Kaz, 2007). This is a style I would always prefer to employ even in my future arguments.