As a student of Logic, I couldn't help but notice the flawed logic of Prop 8 defendant, Charles Cooper who didn't do his research. Males lose quality & quantity of sperm w/ age. Spermatogenesis decreases, chances of disorders in offspring increases. 'Partial androgen decline of the ageing male' (PADAM) (aka Viropause/Andropause, male version of menopause) lowers testosterone levels. Plus, 10% of couples are infertile to begin with. Medical facts. How could he argue this in front of the Supreme Court & not done his research?
Since he is basing this assumption on the myth of widespread male virility. The scientific facts on the other hand, show that 10% of the general population is infertile (that being those under the age of 55), with a higher likelihood of infertility as age progresses. Therefore, state that it is "very rare" for males to be inferred how over the age of 55 is a false statement.
"MR. COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples — both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional -(Laughter.)"
Quote from court proceeding (see below) from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/26/these-are-the-exchanges-you-need-to-read-from-todays-supreme-court-arguments/
The symbolic logic for this goes as follows:
Mr. Cooper's assertion that "females over the age of 55 are infertile" is correct.
Let us symbolize that premise using the logical symbol of "X"
Mr. Cooper's assertion that "males over the age of 55 are fertile" is incorrect,
let us symbolize that premise using the logical symbol of "Y."
His first premise is True whereas his second is False (F).
Therefore, translated into logic symbols, X • Y Since a true premises plus a false premises always equals a false conclusion, this would be translated as follows:
X • Y = F
Spermatogenesis- brain-pituitary-gonad (BPG) axis
The justices also wrangled with Cooper on whether or not procreative ability is important to the institution of marriage:
JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?
MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.
JUSTICE KAGAN: Because that’s the same State interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don’t help us serve the Government’s interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?
MR. COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples — both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional -
JUSTICE KAGAN: No, really, because if the couple — I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.
MR. COOPER: Your Honor, society’s -society’s interest in responsible procreation isn’t just with respect to the procreative capacities of the couple itself. The marital norm, which imposes the obligations of fidelity and monogamy, Your Honor, advances the interests in responsible procreation by making it more likely that neither party, including the fertile party to that -
JUSTICE KAGAN: Actually, I’m not even -
JUSTICE SCALIA: I suppose we could have a questionnaire at the marriage desk when people come in to get the marriage — you know, Are you fertile or are you not fertile?
JUSTICE SCALIA: I suspect this Court would hold that to be an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, don’t you think?
JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, I just asked about age. I didn’t ask about anything else. That’s not - we ask about people’s age all the time.
MR. COOPER: Your Honor, and even asking about age, you would have to ask if both parties are infertile. Again -
JUSTICE SCALIA: Strom Thurmond was — was not the chairman of the Senate committee when Justice Kagan was confirmed.