Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register

Gay Marriage = Fewer Marriages? What Bunk Arithmetic Is Charles Cooper Using In His Perry Prop 8 Logic Farts?

ProectMarriage.com’s attorney Charles Cooper, representing the defense in Perry, just argued that approving marriage equality will lead to fewer marriages. Are human beings actually listening to this? (To counter the point, Ted Olson told the court marriage equality “will not damage the ability of opposite sex couples to marry.”)

    • emb

      Right. Because gay bars have eliminated straight bars and “gentlemen’s clubs” and titty-bars. And gay porn totally wiped out the heterosexual porn industry. And Lawrence v. Texas stopped straight people from having sex altogether.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 2:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • REBELComx

      I hope Cooper continues with such hilarious logic. Perhaps the judge will laugh him out of the court room.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 2:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dick Mills

      “approving marriage equality will lead to fewer marriages.”

      The lying liars can use this kind of nonsense when they are talking to an ignorant populace, but in a court of law, it is the liar’s lie, and nothing else.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 2:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike L

      Lol he also said that marraige is for the purpose of child making, like when is the gov gonna start divorcing sterile couples and grand and grandm cus they cant have kids no more.

      They’re so stupid.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 2:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike L

      Lol he also said that marraige is for the purpose of child making, like when is the gov gonna start divorcing sterile couples and grandpa and grandma cus they cant have kids no more.

      They’re so stupid.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 2:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wen

      Didnt he also say what if bisexuals wanna marry then they wanna marry 1 man+1 woman, which makes some people want marriage between 3 people? lol (slippery slope argument).
      Someone correct me if I got that right, this is too stupid of an argument! I hope he continues this way, he’ll definitely lose the case.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 2:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw

      #6 Wen – there is no slippery slope. Each person gets to pick ONE person of their choice to marry. PERIOD

      Jan 11, 2010 at 4:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wen

      @7 Jaroslaw, yeah, thats what I meant.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 4:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lukas P.

      From what I see on Twitter, the judge asks some very good, fundamental questions, revealing unspoken assumptions such as “gay marriage leads to fewer marriages..” Fewer “REAL” marriages? I can’t wait until he tries to argue that Gay Marriage Causes More DIVORCES! Lol. Yes, that’s our goal, right.

      Here’s hoping this the trial will slowly blow holes through Cooper et al.’s tortuous logic and bizaare assumptions.

      Let’s keep our eyes on the “tides,” not the “waves.” It’s too easy to get swept up in momentary blips and swing back and forth between premature elation and phonecalls to the Swedish embassy asking for refugee status!

      Jan 11, 2010 at 4:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • $0.02

      Well let’s just throw the millions of divorces, just one example, out of the window as a cause for fewer marriages in America. That couldn’t possibly have anything to do with this issue. No, it must be the gay (sarcasm folks sarcasm).

      Jan 11, 2010 at 4:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill

      >>> Miss Stumblfuk’s 2nd grade fightwing lunatic math lesson:

      Usual Hetro Marriages + ADDITIONAL Gay Marriages = Less Marriages

      When you attempt to put any of the poo which spews out of these lunatics mouths on paper the words just don’t seem to form any coherent messages…………….

      Jan 11, 2010 at 6:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Regan Du

      Terrwill, are you daft or something? You have a serious comprehension problem. YOU see what YOU want to, and nothing else. Here is an excerpt form today:

      “Olson had barely launched into his opening statement when Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who is presiding over the trial without a jury, interrupted him to ask how Proposition 8 could be discriminatory since California already allows gays to enter into domestic partnerships that carry the same rights and benefits of marriage.”

      Get a clue Terrwill, unless YOU think the judge is a lunatic for pointing out the obvious. AND IT IS A BIG PROBLEM for the plaintiffs.

      The other side are NOT lunatics or spewing “poo”. Lunatics who are incapable of forming coherent messages do not go up by a score of 31 to zero. If they were lunatics this exercise would be unnecessary, kapish????

      If they are lunatics and their message is poo, then why did about 8 million people vote for their message??. Are you saying 8 million people are lunatics in CAL? Another3 or 4 million in Arizona? Another million in Maine? Another 8 or so million in Florida?

      Jan 12, 2010 at 4:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wen

      @12, well, since you dont know domestic partnership has substanially less rights than marriage in Cali, then no, it is not a problem for the plaintiffs to prove that fact. Second, are the people who vote against equal rights for gays and marriage lunatics? Yes, I surely would say so. You have a lot of lunatics in the USA, that much is obvious.

      Jan 12, 2010 at 9:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill

      No. 12 · Regan Du: Do me a huge favor please? Fuck off and
      die………….take your disgusting hate filled rhetoric
      and cyberstroll over to some rightwing lunatic site….
      I have no patience for selfhating fags like yourself who
      are so afraid to admit that they love cock that they must
      live their lives in denial……….

      Jan 12, 2010 at 10:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam

      @Wen: I don’t want to seem like I’m backing up @Regan Du, who seems a bit… ahem… off… but what are the “substantially less rights” that domestic partnerships get under California law? The law actually says:

      “297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.”

      It seems to me that Regan Du is right to be concerned.

      Jan 12, 2010 at 10:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SuckItBaby

      @Terrwill, ur such a bore man. U always here, get a life and stop bitching @ other people! What a troll u must be.

      Jan 12, 2010 at 10:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill

      No. 16 · SuckItBaby: Dude I wouldn’t even give you a first glance…………

      Jan 12, 2010 at 11:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt

      I’d love to see the mechanism that’s supposed to cause this.

      Jan 12, 2010 at 4:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • Copyright 2016 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.