MORE CONTROVERSY REGARDING PHIL ROBERTSON: ‘You got to marry girls when they are 15 or 16′

Unpleasant video footage of reinstated Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson has emerged in which he appears to advise young men to marry underage girls because they are easier to control.

In the 2009 Sportsmen’s Ministry talk, Robertson, 67, who began dating his wife when she was 14-years-old, advises his audience, ‘You got to marry these girls when they are 15 or 16. They’ll pick your ducks’ – which is a literal reference to removing dead bird’s feathers.

Warming to his stereotypical redneck theme, Robertson, who was suspended from the A&E hit for nine days earlier this month for homophobic comments, tells the gathered crowd that in addition to being young, the girls have to know how to cook and carry a Bible – ‘That’ll save you a lot of trouble down the road.’

While the speech given in Georgia is recounted in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek manner, in light of Robertson’s strong views on traditional family values – protected by the First Amendment – they seem slightly inappropriate.

His advice for a happy marriage, which he claims is a kind of ‘river rat counseling’, is that all men ‘Make sure that she can cook a meal. You need to eat some meals that she cooks, check that out.’

Read more: dailymail.co.uk

  • Abby

    I think he was being silly about a problem that is real in today’s world. Girls are marrying for money not love.

  • Scirel

    Most scholars would acknowledge that Mary was probably this old when she gave birth to the world’s Savior.

    • Colleen Phillips

      How is this relevant? Slavery was also acceptable in that time and culture, as well as any number of other practices we consider to be illegal, taboo, or at the very least, a deviation from the norm.

      • Scirel

        Glad you know better than God. Are you planning to start a religion?

        • Colleen Phillips

          No – just stating a fact. And here’s another one: Teen marriages have a much higher rate of divorce than marriages between adults, and teen pregnancies have a much higher rate of complications and a higher infant mortality rate than pregnancies in women in their 20s. So how this practice would “stabilize” our society is a mystery to me.

          • Scirel

            Did you read what I said? I said it is not recommended these days because of the retarded fashion in which kids grow up these days. If people were responsible at a younger age it would work out better. This reflects a major societal shift over the past 100 years. But in the end you are imposing your modern concerns on a very, very long tradition of family stability in society, when people were married at a much younger age.

            And infant mortality? I mean, yes, it happens. And you are looking at a 0.3% difference here (9 vs. 6 deaths per 1000, while In the 1850s it was over 200!). And who made that the gold standard for what is right all of a sudden? I don’t accept that as a standard. Besides, you are engaged in statistical lying. The age of first pregnancy is strongly correlated to income levels, for instance, which is probably a much larger factor in outcome (although 14 years or less does seem to be an actual factor, but Phil talked about 15-16 years).

          • Colleen Phillips

            Terrific – now you’re accusing me of lying. This conversation is spiking too high on the tedium scale for my taste. Fine – you are entitled to your opinion on the benefits of teen marriages and childbearing. Just when we’ve finally had some success in reducing the rates of teen births, you’re here to promote that and teen marriage as a route to a more stable society. Good luck with that!

          • Scirel

            I said “statistical lying,” due to your equivocations. This is based on a misunderstanding. You stated that infant mortality is related to age. But I am saying that the girls who get pregnant young tend to be poor, which is a factor in infant mortality as well. So you can’t make age the sole predictor, which is what you did. This is a logical fallacy of equivocation. Does that make sense?

            Then in your recent post you are doing it again. I agree there is a problem with teen births, because the vast majority of them are UNWED teens, which is totally shifting the conversation… again! Phil was talking about marrying and you are talking about having babies young and out of wedlock. You just pick and choose irrelevant facts that don’t apply to counter my particular arguments.

            I might suggest you take a course in logic and/or statistics.

  • barnz78

    What a distraction!!

  • futurelife

    I am glad I am not judged by what I did or said back when. UGH

    • Colleen Phillips

      What is your definition of “back when?” This was 2009 -

      • futurelife

        are you for real???? back when is just that… yesterday all the way back to when I first learned to talk. geeeeeeeeeeeee how dumb can you be to ask that anyway!

        • Colleen Phillips

          Yes, I am for real. If your definition of “back when” starts with yesterday, why would you assume that you wouldn’t or shouldn’t be judged for what you did yesterday, or last week, or last month, or last year for that matter? Excuse me for thinking logically – I know it confuses some folks.

  • TRex

    The Left is truly desperate. It’s okay for kids to have sex and abortions as teens and pre-teens, but he’s ‘crazy’ to suggest marriage at an early age.

    • Tonto

      You ain’t seen nothing yet. Wait until they try to run that tired old hysterical hag Hitlery for prez in a couple years.

      • OzzWorx

        The Lizard Queen?!

    • OzzWorx

      Context He said “the way things are going…” and, yes, the way things are going, American women get corrupted the longer they allow themselves to be influenced by the world. If you think Phil was promoting pedophilia, why don’t I hear any outrage from the left with Muslim pedophilia or homosexual pedophilia? Hypocrites!

      • UnCL3

        That kind of pedophilia, multiple wives, and in general “War on Women” is highly acceptable and valued in the libt4rd scheme of things…they ‘vote the right way”, so it’s okie dokie.

  • David Taylor

    Well, that was a stupid thing to say. You listen to the audio, and the audience is laughing, but he looks pretty serious.

    • bbutchb

      Couldn’t find your sense of humor today Mr. Liberalprick..???

      • David Taylor

        Butch, Peace. Still the internal conversation. I think it was a stupid thing to say, I didn’t say I didn’t like the guy, although, come to think of it, I don’t know him well enough to have an opinion of him either way, except I think he has the right to say anything he chooses to say. Okay, I guess I kind’a like him. Still a stupid thing to say.

    • Mekadave

      I bet you’ve never watched the show. Phil always looks serious. His middle name should be ‘Deadpan’.

      • David Taylor

        It’s true, I’ve never watched the program. The ads made me think it would simply be another show ridiculing people I tend to respect.

    • Tonto

      The “serious” look is part of the “shtick” in the delivery of their dry humor. They want the reaction to their humor to be more cerebral than libtards are accustomed to evidently. The Robertsons don’t deal in slapstick.. Even Si looks serious when he says the most outrageous things to make people laugh.

      • David Taylor

        Tonto, I defer to your insight on this one.

  • http://TedSlater.com/ Ted Slater

    From the article: “While the speech given in Georgia is recounted in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek manner …”

  • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

    Congratulations, Clash Daily: You’ve gone on record calling advocacy of child molestation “slightly inappropriate.”

    • Brenda

      “child molestation”!!! Funny interpretation of the article. GLADD advocates the LGBT lifestyle for preteens and teens, liberals advocate abortions for teens and you think these are not forms of child molestations!!!!

      • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

        I’m not pro-abortion, but what does that have to do with the fact this dude – who the right has been telling me for weeks now speaks the word of God – is advocating child r@pe?

        • Brenda

          No one is accusing you of being pro-abortion Katy. They are pointing out the differences in the liberal, LGBT, and GLADD views and the attack these groups made on Phil. .

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            The GLAAD controversy was ridiculous. I don’t see what that has to do with conservatives defending this particular speech.

            People say stupid stuff and they should be called on it when they do.

            This is the “Mel Gibson” error. in 2004, I was told by evangelicals about how Mel Gibson was a messenger of God, and that his interpretation of the Gospels was, well, Gospel. I didn’t care for the movie and I was told I was therefore anti-Christian.

            A few years later, when he had his meltdown, these same Christians were torn about what to do, but you never hear him defended today.

            It’s the same thing here: We’re all imperfect messengers, but when someone says something that’s flat out indefensible, we shouldn’t defend it.

          • Colleen Phillips

            I totally agree with you. We need to be as objective as we possibly can be, and call things as they are, regardless of who the messenger is. Anyone who doesn’t, isn’t being honest with themselves or anyone else, and isn’t really interested in the truth, no matter what they claim. That’s why I would not hesitate to sit down with anyone and have a real discussion about any topic. I always welcome facts and am always open to consider new ideas. I don’t know why so many people are so threatened and so defensive when someone questions their “sacred cows.” Why is it well nigh impossible for people to admit when they are wrong, and give credit (or blame) where credit is due? Ego, I suppose -

        • OzzWorx

          Context.

      • Colleen Phillips

        Very flawed reasoning on your part, Brenda. You have no logical basis for assuming Katy agrees with GLADD just because she states a fact: 15 is not the legal age of consent. Any adult who has sex with a child is a sex offender under the law. Period.

        • agbjr

          Unless they are married. Phil was seventeen and Kay sixteen when they were married.

        • Brenda

          And, I did not accuse her of agreeing with them. I was referencing the GLADD attack in the article. As for Katy, I am not sure what her opinions are since she is determined to use the child molestation reference because of the 15 year old marriage reference. And I am well aware of the age of consent laws, thank you.

    • TRex

      ClashDaily didn’t write the column Katy. It was written by DailyMail, you doofus. Derrrr….

      • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

        Great, then conservatives ought to be lining up to distance themselves from this proud Christian child molester.

        • agbjr

          Sex between consenting parties in a legal marriage is not molestation.

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            Except that in most states, a 14 year old can’t even get married. 14 year olds are legally incapable of consent.

            Who is his intended audience? Was he talking to 15 year old boys?

          • agbjr

            Kay was sixteen and Phil seventeen at the time of their marriage … what are you implying?

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            He is advocating sex with children.

            If you are going to pretend not to understand what is wrong with that, I can’t help you.

          • agbjr

            Please show us exactly where and when he said it was OK for an adult to have sex with a child? Your mind is very twisted.

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            So in your estimation, he was advocating sexless marriage to children? So he’s Muhammad.

          • agbjr

            Your ‘reasoning’ is frankly asinine and proof you can not have a factual discussion.

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            I’m not sure how to respond. You cast a vague assertion that my logic is faulty without more.

            If my words bother you, then by all means, scroll on by. No one is forcing you to read this.

          • agbjr

            Your ‘logic’ is a blatant accusation – without fact or documentation – that Phil Robertson is a child molester. You DO understand your many comments here are more than enough evidence for the Robertson family to file a legal suite against you?

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            Actually, it wouldn’t be because he is a public figure.

            I’m not saying it to ruin his reputation. I’m saying to ridicule the sickos defending his child abuse advocacy.

          • agbjr

            Madam, you have no understanding of facts nor apparently a grasp on reality itself. I recommend you seek serious psychological help.

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            And I encouraged you a half hour ago to scroll on by my words if you didn’t like them.

          • agbjr

            It is just too much fun poking holes in your asinine and self-righteous comments!

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            I haven’t seen that you have done that yet.

            However, if you wish to have an actual conversation, you may begin at any time.

            if you are merely going to insult me and accuse me of crimes, then we should probably call it a day right here and go our separate ways.

          • agbjr

            Your flawed ‘logic’ is just too funny … and sad.

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            You keep saying that without actually contributing anything.

            Until you do, I am not going to waste further time responding to your statements.

            Fair enough?

          • clbrown

            Mohammed married Aisha when she was six and he was fifty-two. He “consummated” the marriage when she turned nine. Be sure to get your facts straight.

            Modern Islam (the “resurgent movement” which first came to prominence in 1979 when Jimmy Carter handed Iran over to Khomeini after betraying the Shah… no angel himself, but far better than his successor!) holds as part of its core philosophy that “the reason Islam has not taken over the world and in recent centuries saw decline” is because they’d stopped explicitly following the exact example of Mohammed. And since both slavery and child-rape (to use your own term) were part of what he engaged in and condoned, these are now considered “sanctified” Islamic practices by those who follow this movement. Granted, not every Muslim agrees, but the more “success” they see, the more Muslims accept this… it’s a cascade at this point.

            Mohammed never advocated “sexless marriage.” In fact, he allowed his followers to engage in sexual slavery… it was lawful for any man to engage in sexual relationships with his wives, or with “those who your right hand possesses” (aka slaves, kidnap victims, etc). And, while the Koran explicitly forbids “homosexual love” (emotional connections between men), it permits SEXUAL acts, as long as they’re entirely “meaningless.” It even allows for homosexual pedophilia. (Which is part of why Michael Jackson, accused of such behavior, was then permitted to flee to a fundamentalist Islamic state and to “convert to Islam.”)

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            So are you in favor of a grown man marrying a 14-year old so that she can pull feathers off of ducks for him or not?

            If you are against it, then we’re merely bickering. If you’re for it, then just say so.

          • clbrown

            You really are trolling, aren’t you.

            Shall I repeat this for you one more time?

            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

            Finally… a very quick “google search” told me this:
            Phil Robertson – Born April 24, 1946 (age 67)
            Kay Robertson – Born December 21, 1950 (age 63)
            married 1966)

            So, when he married his wife, she was fifteen or sixteen, and he was nineteen or twenty.

            That’s the context you might want to be considering here.

            *****************************

            But keep on sticking to your “chosen point of outrage” instead of discussing the facts.

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            Again, I don’t care how old he was, I care about what he said.

            In your last comment, you crossed the line with me: You advocated child molestation.

            Please don’t talk to me further.

          • clbrown

            I did no such thing. You are a liar, and you just committed a criminal act (libel) which I could press charges against you over.

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            I hope that’s not what you were doing. I hope that, in your desperate attempt to defend this conservative hero – you simply missed what you were defending.

            Have a great new year.

          • clbrown

            I’m not “defending a conservative hero.” I’m discussing FACTS. TRUTH. REALITY. This guy talked about “marrying a young woman” and that’s exactly what he did himself… when he was a young man.

            Context is everything. That you refuse to even acknowledge that context shows that you have an agenda, not a moral point to make.

          • OzzWorx

            Outrage, yes, but it is selective outrage disregarding context.

        • CountryBoy

          He is NOT a Christian child molester … Go and ask YOUR Grandparents at what age that they got married…… YOU may be surprised as how young they were…… at one time that was the norm…

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            One set of my grandparents was 27. The other were 30.

            14-year olds are not capable of giving consent. You’ve been had: Your spokesman for God has been outed as an advocacy of child r@pe.

            It’s okay. There are bad people in the world. Just move on.

          • agbjr

            Phil did not say he and Kay were having sex at fourteen. Check your facts before you comment … you will not look so ignorant.

    • agbjr

      Miss Kay was sixteen when she married Phil, he was seventeen. Do you have evidence they had sex two years before their marriage?

      • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

        In most states, it’s not a crime if the two people involved are within a year or two in age. In other words, a 17 year old with even 15 year old probably would not be a crime.

        • agbjr

          You are referring to Phil as a child molester so the question begs, what are you reading into the article that others aren’t?

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            I can’t believe that the Right has been so blinded by a reality TV star that they are now following him down a path of advocating sex with children.

            I could care less about this guy, but it seems pretty common sense to start distancing yourself form someone who advocates sex with kids.

          • agbjr

            Your own comments prove you can not properly process facts. The only perceived ‘advocacy’ of sex with children is in your own twisted mind. Learn to understand a matter before you comment … use the brain God gave you.

          • Mo86

            You sure do care about this guy because you are here and claiming he said things he never did.

            Show me where he advocates sex with kids? Show it to me?

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            I’ll consider the alternative: Do you believe he was advocating sexless marriage? Perhaps he was saying you could marry little girls but not consummate the marriage?

          • master of sinanju

            WHEN and WHERE did he say that!? I will wager you are one heck of a fisherwoman. TROLLLLLLL(ING)

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            This has already been discussed and resolved. You are late to the party. Sorry.

          • clbrown

            … and here it is again… lather-rinse-repeat… (sigh)

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            I know, my position remains the same on child r@pe no matter how many squirrels you point to. Imagine that!

          • clbrown

            Oh, how cute. Snideness and self-righteousness don’t help to reinforce your point.

            The guy was not advocating child-rape. He married his sixteen-year-old wife, who he met when she was fourteen. He’s three and a half years older than she is.

            Why is that so hard for you to understand?

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            I don’t really care about what he did so much as what he is advocating here. If he had married a 30-year old but proceeded to advocate 14-year olds marrying, I would feel the same way about the statement.

            You are now bickering for the sake of bickering.

          • clbrown

            No, I am not. You, however, clearly are.

            One more time…

            *************************

            “Finally… a very quick “google search” told me this:
            Phil Robertson – Born April 24, 1946 (age 67)
            Kay Robertson – Born December 21, 1950 (age 63)
            married 1966)

            “So, when he married his wife, she was fifteen or sixteen, and he was nineteen or twenty.

            “That’s the context you might want to be considering here.”

            **************************

          • master of sinanju

            He didn’t though, did he?? You should change your name to Jem, outrageous, truly, truly outrageous!!

          • OzzWorx

            That’s it, Katy, You have failed to examine the context of his speech and to somehow tar Phil with things he never said shows your hypocrisy. You have proven yourself incapable of reasoned discussion. He did not advocate child molestation. Every one of your heroes does, yet you only want to tar Phil. Go back and listen to the speech in context and he was saying that womanhood today ruins women as they get older. At this point we could use you as an example.

      • Colleen Phillips

        Phil is 4 years older than Kay, so you might want to check your math.

    • http://reasontostand.org/ Wes Widner

      Advocating early marriage is the same as molestation in your book? Really?

      • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

        Yes. And the law it is, too. we consider children and the mentally infirm incapable of giving consent.

        I have seen your other comments claiming that Christianity advocates child r@pe and that such behavior is healthy and normal.

        As a parent, I really would rather not direct that sort of sick crap in my direction. Thanks in advance.

        • http://reasontostand.org/ Wes Widner

          So, to be consistent, you’re against all sex education in schools as well, right? Because if they cannot give consent for sex within marriage then it stands to reason that they cannot give consent to sex outside of marriage either.

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            You’re changing the subject. However, yes, 14-year olds are deemed incapable of giving consent. It’s a way we protect kids. In most states, if the individuals having sex are underage but within a couple years of each other, there’s an exception in the law. It’s basically the “neither one of them could legally consent” exception.

            Now, to get to your tangential point, I don’t think that has anything to do with sex education. Regardless of whether 14-year olds SHOULD be having sex, we know that many are. We know that a surprisingly large percentage of the population gets molested as children. Sex education should not be about encouraging kids to have sex it ought to be education. To the extent that it is encouragement, then it is taking a bad approach.

          • http://reasontostand.org/ Wes Widner

            Its really not tangential at all. The point is that you are being very selective with your classification of what does and does not constitute molestation and when someone can and cannot give consent.

            Sure, if we were Vulcans sex education shouldn’t be about encouraging kids to have sex, but the fact of the matter is that when you teach someone the _safe_ way to go about sinning you are implicitly condoning the sin.

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            It is tangential, because it is clear you want to talk about anything except this right wing hero advocating child molestation.

          • http://reasontostand.org/ Wes Widner

            No, my point has consistently been that 1. your definition of molestation is selective and 2. what Phil is advocating (and what I am teaching my 4 children btw) is infinitely better than the hook-up sex being promoted all over our culture.

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            My definition is the legal definition. An adult man having sex with a child is child molestation. Kids aren’t capable of consent and, despite your assurance that baby brides are a Christian concept, we don’t let kids get married because we have made a collective decision that it’s wrong.

          • agbjr

            You DO realize your accusations are opening yourself to charges of slander?

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            If he doesn’t want to be accused of advocating child abuse, he should not advocate it.

          • agbjr

            Your words prove your slander … and asinine self-righteousness.

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            Nothing I have said is slander.

            Please move on.

          • http://reasontostand.org/ Wes Widner

            No Katy, you’re simply wrong.

            First of all Phil has in mind men who are slightly older than the women they marry, just look at his own marriage and the marriage of his sons for evidence of that.

            Second we have not collectively decided anything, least of all that early marriage constitutes child molestation. I told you that 15 is a legal marriageable age in GA. 13 is legal in SC under certain circumstances (including the bride being pregnant) and it looks like its possible to be married at 14 LA (where Phil’s from) with a court order.

            The real reason that early marriage is frowned upon by our society is because we’ve been infected by feminist philosophies like marriage == bad for so many years.

          • clbrown

            His point is NOT “tangential,” but at least you addressed it, so that’s a good thing.

            This is a key point of disagreement… to you it’s “tangential,” but to others, it’s CENTRAL.

            The issue is “sex as related to marriage.” The argument being made is that “sex should exist solely within the confines of marriage.” You, it would seem, disagree with that assertion. Is that an accurate assessment of your position?

            See, if you view “sex” and “marriage” as being directly related, “teaching sex to ‘children'” is very much the same subject as “allowing ‘children’ to marry.”

            To me, I view sex as something very serious. It’s not just “play.” (Those who treat it as such are, in fact, the “children” in this conversation.) Yes, it’s got it’s “play” aspect to it, sure. But the biological purpose is “procreation,” primarily, as well a significant, but secondary, function as an aid to “bonding.” And marriage, as well, is principally about those two subjects… “bonding” and “procreation.”

            The biggest problem related to this subject today is that so many people want to treat “sex” and “marriage” as two unrelated, or “tangentially related,” subjects. But, countless years of human history… culture, morality, and frankly just basic economics… prove that they are, in fact, very very much the same thing.

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            The reason I say it’s tangential is because it is an attempt not to address what was said by this man.

            It’s a distraction technique: “Oh yeah, you don’t like Person A? Well, what about Person B? Or what about issue X?”

            What I think about, say, Jerry Seinfeld (who was actually brought up by another commenter) has nothing to do with whether this guy’s advocacy of child brides is off-base.

            Furthermore, no 14-year old (married or unmarried) should be having sex – with anyone, let alone grown men. In my home state of Texas, 14-year olds can’t get married even with a parents’ consent, and I hope most states are like that.

          • clbrown

            I’m also in Texas (though I live in the island of lunacy known as Austin, which I often refer to as “San Francisco in Texas”).

            I agree, with our culture what it is today, I wouldn’t ever recommend anyone at 14 to get married. I also view people that age as “children” (not due to biology, though, but purely due to cultural conditioning… people at that age haven’t had to “grow up” yet and thus are not qualified to take on the RESPONSIBILITIES associated with sex, as well as with many other subjects).

            It’s NOT a “distraction technique.” This seems like a “subject change” to you, it’s obvious… but that, I think it’s also obvious, is because you do not associate “sex” and “marriage” to the same extent that many others do. You said that you’re married, though, didn’t you? So, from that standpoint, do you really not view the two as being interrelated and in fact critical to each other?

            To those to whom “sex” and “marriage” are closely tied to each other, it’s not a “tangential” point, nor is it a “distraction technique.” It’s THE SAME SUBJECT.

            Oh, and the reason I brought up Seinfeld earlier was because (since he has liberal leaning political stances, and is considered “cool” culturally) I was curious if you felt as much revulsion to his behavior (actual BEHAVIOR, mind you, not just “something he said”) as you do to the mere words spoken by the Duck dude.

            Finally… a very quick “google search” told me this:
            Phil Robertson – Born April 24, 1946 (age 67)
            Kay Robertson – Born December 21, 1950 (age 63)
            married 1966)

            So, when he married his wife, she was fifteen or sixteen, and he was nineteen or twenty.

            That’s the context you might want to be considering here.

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            I would consider the issue of marriage relevant to the discussion if he hadn’t been talking about 14-year olds. When you’re talking about 14-year olds, bringing marriage into it doesn’t really resolve anything. So yes, i still consider it tangential.

            “Jerry Seinfeld did it, too” also doesn’t justify anything.

          • clbrown

            Who’s attempting to “justify” anything?

            I’m just trying to establish if your “moral outrage” is actually based upon morality, or if it’s “skewed” based upon the person it’s being directed towards.

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            I’ll try again.

            There is NO sex with a fourteen year old that is “constructive,” to use your term. The fact that kids matured at 8 and were dead by 30 in the past has nothing to do with this.

            Sex at 3, or 7, or 12, or 14 is not somehow made MORAL by the fact that the guy married her first.

            Marriage is important and if everyone waited until they were married to have sex, we’d no doubt have better outcomes with our kids. However, when you’re talking about 14-year olds, marriage is not the issue.

          • clbrown

            In the past, kids did not biologically mature any faster than today. In fact, BIOLOGICALLY SPEAKING, kids are maturing at a younger age, today, than ever before, according to medical studies. This is probably due to better nutrition, sanitation, and just general health-care.

            GEORGE WASHINGTON WAS CONSIDERED AN ADULT AT THE AGE OF FOURTEEN. HE WORKED AS A SURVEYOR. That’s not all that long ago. He was not a “child” at that point.

            You’re engaged in what’s been going on for just about a century now… the attempt to “redefine childhood” to extend FAR beyond where it once was considered “over.” Today, we’ve just “redefined” childhood to extend all the way up to the age of 25, haven’t we?

            Who are you… or who would I be, for that matter… to attempt to “redefine” what “childhood” means, without respect to either biology or cultural history?

            You and I agree… “children” should never, ever be having sex.

            But… why are you so certain that a specific age range clearly delineates this category? What basis are you using to determine that, other than “someone else says so?”

            If that’s your sole argument, how is that any different than what you’re arguing against?

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            You’re just lecturing now, and will not address the basic issue regarding what this guy said: Is advocacy of grown men having sex with children wrong or right?

            You seem to be defending it, or at elast screaming “Squirrel!” rather than address it.

            I am done talking to someone defending child molesting.

            PLEASE don’t act on your feelings. It will screw a kid up for life.

          • clbrown

            HE DID NOT SAY THAT… and since I’ve told you this already, and you’ve ignored it, you’re clearly just trolling.

            Again… c’mon, Katy, pay attention…

            ***************************

            “Finally… a very quick “google search” told me this:
            Phil Robertson – Born April 24, 1946 (age 67)
            Kay Robertson – Born December 21, 1950 (age 63)
            married 1966)

            “So, when he married his wife, she was fifteen or sixteen, and he was nineteen or twenty.

            “That’s the context you might want to be considering here.”

            **************************

            How hard is it for you to wrap your head around that? I get it… it doesn’t fit your personal narrative.. the argument you WANT to make… but it’s actual fact.

            I don’t care for this guy, but not on a personal basis… he’s just not “my people.” I don’t think I’d have much to talk about with him, nor would he have much to talk about with me. I don’t watch the show… I have no interest in it. I am not “defending” anyone from anything here, except for FALSE AND FRAUDULENT ACCUSATIONS… aka “libel.”

            You might want to be more careful about tossing around libel in the future.

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            For the final time: I don’t care how old his wife was when they got married. I was referring only to what he was advocating.

          • clbrown

            But Katy, he did not advocate what your “talking point” is forcing you to keep on claiming (FALSELY) that he “advocated.”

            This is YOUR POINT, not this guy’s point. You either have serious reading comprehension issues (which does not seem to be the case) or you simply have a pre-written script you’re working on which even hard facts won’t deter you from pursuing.

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            I had no opinion this guy at all until I listened to his own words here.

            Look, you are getting off on this trolling thing, and I don’t care to talk with you further until you can manage to condemn sex with children.

            Have a great 2014.

          • clbrown

            Until you define what a “child” is… other than “some dude who I’m supposed to obey told me”… you can’t make that argument. Is someone who’s seventeen a “child?” What if that someone is leading an army in an African nation? Is that still a “child?” Was George Washington (who I’ve mentioned several times, but who you’ve ignored repeatedly) a “child” when he was doing the surveying for the northern region of Virginia, as a full-time career (after having already completed his apprenticeship) just because he was, at that time, fourteen years old?

            Define “child” for me… and do so using a reasoned argument, not “because that’s just how it is, because that’s what the important people tell me I’m supposed to think.”

            That’s the STARTING POINT for this conversation, not a “tangential issue.”

            And your ongoing libel… attempting, in a bratty, petulant, and deeply offensive manner, to infer that I’m somehow “in favor of sex with children”… is unforgivable, and proves that you, frankly, are still very much a CHILD yourself.

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            Well, since we’re both from Texas, let’s look.

            We can’t get married here unless a) we’re 18 or over OR b) we have our parents’ consent.

            The catch is that if parents consent to marriage for a child under 16, they’ve committed a crime.

            Under no circumstances could a 14-year old get married. Furthermore, sex with a 14-year old would be a crime (unless the boyfriend was 15 or 16).

            That seems fairly reasonable as far as the law goes.

            As far as your other accusation goes, all you’d have to do is say you oppose men having sex with little girls. You get mad every time I say that, but you have done nothing but defended it, and it creeped me out.

            I told you I don’t want to talk to you further due to your refusal to oppose child molestation.

            PLEASE DON’T TALK TO ME FURTHER.

          • clbrown

            I already said that… but let’s just be clear, so your ongoing “libel” can be put to bed.

            I hereby swear and affirm that adults should not have sex with children… period.

            Now, you should be able to stop making that inference… shouldn’t you?

            I have said that, in various forms, multiple times now. Why is it that you keep on, despite that, claiming that I’ve never said anything against that? Is it because you want people who “come into the conversation late” to not bother to read the context, and thus to assume that your libelous assertion is accurate? Hmmm?

            You say “I told you I don’t want to talk to you further due to your refusal to oppose child molestation.” Which, of course, is a lame attempt to denigrate my arguments. It’s nasty, deceitful, and generally evil, frankly… it’s easier to dismiss an opinion if you can associate that opinion with “monster” in your mind, though, isn’t it?

            Finally… I will say whatever I want to say (within the bounds of the standards of posting for this site, and within the constraints of my own conscience). You can’t tell me to “stop talking to you” because, as you well know, this is not a “private conversation.” It’s a PUBLIC FORUM. And that’s just a lame technique to try to “get the last word.”

            Sorry, as much as you might wish to be able to do so, you can’t twist the real world, and real people, to fit to your “internal world definition.”

          • clbrown

            That is YOUR issue.. it’s not the issue raised by this guy. You want to turn one statement, which may or may not be “wise” but is in no way “criminal,” into something else, which is not what was said, but which you WISH was what was said… because that makes for better “forced outrage” and even better yet, it would seem, “easy demonization of those who Katy dislikes.”

            Your snide, bratty assertion about me is, however, libelous… and Katy, since you seem to be in the same location as me, it’d be easy for me to have you up on charges of libel for that. You might want to be tread a bit more lightly in the future.

            You can get off your self-righteous high-horse now. You can stop patting yourself on the back for being “better” now. You really, really can. You’re a child… based upon your own attitudes as shown here… and thus anyone having sex with YOU is engaging in “child molestation.”

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            I asked you repeatedly if you approve of 14-year olds marrying. in response, you brought up Jerry Seinfeld and anything – ANYTHING so that you would not have to say that sex with a 14 year old is wrong.

            Look,as I said, I hope that it’s just an oversight on your part, but please – you give me the creeps and I don’t care to talk to you further.

          • clbrown

            I already stated that I don’t think fourteen year olds, today, should be doing any of that. You responded to the note I wrote where I said that, so I have to assume you’re able to read…

            But I also raised the point that our “modern western society” where you’re still considered a “child” at the age of twenty five now is not the norm for human history, nor is it in agreement with basic human biology. I pointed out that, not long ago, someone in their mid-teens was considered an “adult.” And that this was not due to people actually maturing faster, biologically… it was solely a CULTURAL issue.

            “Modern western society” can attempt to redefine sociological and biological precepts as much as it wants, but in the end, human nature wins out over “forced enlightenment” every single time. You can’t fight nature… as the folks who live in New Orleans ought to figure out one of these days (a city below sea level, on the coast, which is only liveable so long as the dykes remain intact and the pumps keep running? And they’re surprised when they get flooded? Really???)

            Nature wins out over “modernization” every time the two are put into conflict. And nature says “human beings in their mid-teens are going to have sex.”

            And your “you give me the creeps” thing… Katy, you can keep on trying to infer nasty things about me, hoping that (without reading the rest of the conversation) you can TRICK someone into believing something bad about me… that’s a sleazy, bratty technique, but not unexpected, I suppose. I’ll just repeatedly counter that with the facts… your attempts to libel and slander and impune will not go unchallenged.

            NOBODY is arguing in favor of “child molestation” except the straw-men who live inside your own mind, it seems.

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            Good. Then we are both in agreement, which is sort of what I thought an hour ago.

            Woohoo, we agree.

            Have a good new year.

          • master of sinanju

            Where did he say grown men marrying children? In the man’s expierience, he married his wife who was SLIGHTLY younger than he was.

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            This was already discussed at length. I don’t care what he did, I care what he was advocating.

            I think this was discussed ad nauseum already.

          • master of sinanju

            According to you, maybe, i will go with what the BIBLE says on the matter. And no, for the record I do not think 14 year olds should be getting married OR having premarital sex.

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            Great, then we actually agree.

          • master of sinanju

            How much you willing to wager sweet lil katy is a lefty loon from the dallas fort wort area?

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            Wrong on all counts.

            Anarcho-syndicalist from Houston.

        • http://reasontostand.org/ Wes Widner

          BTW: The law actually does not say that early marriage is the same as molestation. In fact, its possible to get married in GA at 15 with parental consent.

    • Grayzel

      Katy, after reading you posts below, I find your conclusions are based on your faulty reasoning. First, what Phil said was not humor. Second, he recommended young people have sex before marriage. Third, sex within marriage is a sin if the man and woman are below an age you approve of. Need I go on?

      • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

        Please don’t go on. I have no idea what you were trying to say. I’m sure it made sense in your head before you typed it.

    • Mekadave

      Are you really so eager to be outraged that you don’t realize that Phil was joking? He uses the same dry delivery all of the time. The audience could tell, they were laughing loudly enough. If you’ve ever watched the show, you’d know that. Pathetic.

      • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

        I’m not actually interested in being outraged. I wasn’t outraged by his other comments, and I’m not really outraged by these.

        I’m disappointed that so many on the Right stand ready to defend reprehensible advocacy of child r@pe, and your defense is that child abuse is meant to be funny.

        • Mekadave

          *blank stare* For someone not interested in being outraged, you sure seem to be trying real hard to be it. ‘Child abuse’? Really? SMH…..

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            Yes, a grown man having sex with a 14 year old is child abuse.

          • clbrown

            So, please, show me where this guy said that HE intended to go get a fourteen year old girl, please?

            You’re stretching… HARD… to attempt to maintain your forced outrage.

          • master of sinanju

            Naw, I think the rubber band broke!!!

        • clbrown

          Katy, your every comment here shows “outrage.” Please don’t dissemble… it won’t convince anyone (except, maybe, yourself?).

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            Again, I’m not outraged by him.

            I am incredibly disappointed – to the point of outrage – by the defense by man y of something that is indefensible.

          • clbrown

            What is “indefensible?” I’m not a fan of the show… and I doubt I’d ever want to hang out with this guy. But what you’re saying is ludicrous. He did not advocate “child rape.” But then again, I’m guessing that you’re what, 26 or so? In today’s culture, that would make YOU barely beyond “childhood” (as defined by “you can still be covered by mommy and daddy’s insurance policy”), so…

            Today’s “western culture” has attempted to overwrite thousands upon thousands of years of culture and, frankly, BIOLOGY. Throughout the vast length of recorded human history, “marriage” was something which happened between men and women who were in their mid-to-late-teens, with the male usually being several years older than the female.

            Do I think it’s CREEPY to suggest that an “old guy” should marry a teenage girl? Sure… but that’s not what this guy was saying, now, was it? How would you feel if he’d added “and you guys ought to be doing that when you’re seventeen or so?” Would that have made it “OK” to you?

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            I don’t know. Let me think through that.

            I mean, I don’t think I would have noticed a statement like, “Get married while you are young – REAL young!”

            So I think a clarification like that would have had an impact. There IS a a sort of visceral reaction to seeing a middle aged guy talking about how people ought to marry 14-year old girls, absolutely.

      • henryknox

        Don’t fall into the trap of stroking Progressives’ fragile egos. Unfortunately, they do not have normal senses of humor. Phil was essentially making fun of himself, although espousing a hint of truth.

        • Mekadave

          Oh, I just had to mock her faux outrage a little. Lefties hate it when you mock them.

    • TRex

      You must be really pissed and outspoken re: Islam as their offenses against females, young and old, are truly atrocious. Tell us how you have railed publicly against Islam, Katy. We’re all ears!

      • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

        I think the culture surrounding much of Islam is barbaric. What does that have to do with the Right trying to defend a guy advocating child r@pe?

    • clbrown

      I guess it all depends on how you define “child.” Throughout most of human history, in almost all cultures, those in their teens were not considered “children.” TODAY, however, we consider men and women up to 26 to be “children.”

      George Washington was on his own, a full-time-employed surveyor, at the age of fourteen. This was VERY common at the time, by the way, not the exception to the rule. In other words, just a couple of centuries back, a person who was “fourteen” was considered to be an “adult,” not a “child.”

      I’m curious, Katy… how did you react to Jerry Seinfeld’s dating of an underaged woman when he was in his forties? Did you call him a “child rapist,” with all that inplies (prison time, etc)?

      • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

        The funny thing about this is that one of the warnings the Right has been screaming about in regards to gay marriage is that the age of consent laws are going to be the next thing to go if gay marriage passes.

        Here, we have a large group of conservatives talking about how grown men advocating sex with little girls is okay.

        • clbrown

          And I can’t help but notice that, as you keep on stroking your forced outrage, you refused to so much as acknowledge any point I made, above. Why is that, Katy? Are you here to spout talking points, or to engage in discussion?

          • vincent

            She is probably coming over from the Daily Kos for a good troll. The left wingnuts never have the courage to mention the well documented pedophilia among the Muslims, Hollywood glitteratzis and the homosexuals. They like to slander conservatives with broad generalizations and caricatures.

        • master of sinanju

          Get some facts first braindead, some if not most states, yes minors can get married with the CONSENT of the parent(s)!

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            Actually, I don’t know any state where 14-year olds can get married. It would certainly be the exception.

            This has already been addressed.

            I have learned that a LOT of conservatives believe that grown adult men marrying 12, 13, and 14-year olds is okay.

            I had not previously been aware of this.

    • master of sinanju

      Get a grip, idiot.

      • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

        Happy New Year.

        Smile.

  • Brenda

    Give it a rest GLADD and the rest of the LGBT communityand idiot liberals. It’s perfectly alright for you to spout your views but you have absolutely no tolerance for others or their views. Do any of you have a problem with teens having sex or abortions before they are 14 or 15? No, in fact you are out there telling teens and preteens it is alright to be sexually active at young ages, that the homosexual life style is perfectlly normal, and that abortions are a means of birth control..

    • Tonto

      Thank you for pointing out another lefty ploy…..”attack the opposing view at every opportunity”. The attack doesn’t even have to make sense….as long as it’s “emotional”. It’s all part of the “divide and conquer” part of the “agenda”.

  • agbjr

    Phil Robertson is a product of his time, region, and culture just as West Virginia’s late Senator Robert Byrd was. Phil is not the ignorant redneck liberals attempt to portray him as. He is a devout Christian and loyal American, nothing more and nothing less. Those who want to criticize his commentary about women and marriage willfully ignore a very clear fact: Phil shows the utmost love and respect for his wife; he does whatever she wants and will do whatever it takes to make her happy. No one can deny Phil is the patriarch of the family but it is Miss Kay who rules. Happy. Happy. Happy.

  • Colleen Phillips

    Is he joking or is he serious? Comedians get a pass to say all sorts of inappropriate things. Is the audience laughing because he’s funny-outrageous, or because his comments are making them feel uncomfortable? Kind of hard to tell from just this short clip.

    • Tonto

      I think you’re correct….especially the part about taking words and spinning them out of context. Saul Alinsy’s book, “Rules for Radicals” spells that as an attack ploy that causes the accused to jump through hoops to explain….that is never 100% effective since some clowns will believe the worst to justify their political affiliation.

  • http://reasontostand.org/ Wes Widner

    There is nothing inappropriate about what Phil said. And he is 100% right. I may ask my kids to wait a year or two more than Phil mentiuons but the overall sentiment of marrying young and having kids early is 100% compatible with what is taught in scripture regarding family formation. What’s more, its also evident that our current pattern of waiting until 30 to marry and 35 to think of having kids (maybe) isn’t working out so well for anyone.

    • Kathy W

      I have two sisters who had children very young. The 16 yr. old could not give birth and it was a horrible outcome. Some women can give birth that young but some of us can’t and the body will cause early labor in some. The 17 yr. old had no physical problems giving birth but she was like a caged bird after that. I waited until I was 20 but realized I wasn’t really emotionally ready until about the age of 24. Women are most fertile from about 24 to 30. That is nature telling us something. Every child a woman has after the first 3, takes years off her life. After having 6, it really takes a toll.

      • agbjr

        My grandmother had six children, she passed away at 80. My sister has six children, she’s doing just fine. Family genetics and intellectual maturity factor much more into lifespan than a parent’s age and number of pregnancies.

        • Kathy W

          Yes, my grandmother had 11 and lived to be 94 but she didn’t marry until she was about 25 and I think that helped. My great-aunt had 21 and only lived to be 60. She married at 14. I was quoting statistics only and stating what I have personally seen. Past 6 children is when it really takes a toll, statistically. To my family, dying at 80 is young.

          • agbjr

            My grandparents eloped at age seventeen and eighteen, respectively; they had six children. My other grandparents were nineteen and twenty, respectively. They had one child.

            Your ‘point’ still evades explanation and comprehension.

      • clbrown

        Not necessarily true. Every person’s situation is different, so don’t make the mistake of assuming that because your own anecdotal evidence says that, it’s a truism.

        Humanity has been around for a LOOOONG time. A lot longer than modern “western civilization.” And people have been having sex, and then having children, at young ages for the vast majority of that time, with today’s “western culture” being the OUTLIER in this particular data set.

        I’m not saying anything, pro or con, regarding “marrying early.” I, personally, have waited til very late to do so (I’m male by the way), so don’t take this as a claim that “everyone ought to do this, or that.” It’s not.

        But, let’s be clear. Until VERY RECENTLY in human history, “marrying young” was the standard practice, and in much of the rest of the world, this remains the standard practice.

        It’s true that “children should not marry and have kids.” But, as we can see so clearly today, how we define a “child” is changing. George Washington was a full-time, professional surveyor at the age of fourteen, and that was not an uncommon situation at that time in our history (just a couple of hundred years ago, remember!). Males were typically 17-18 when they married, and they’d usually marry women around 14-16. Even as early as the 1930s and 1940s, it was very common for men to marry at not much older than that, and for women to marry at not much older than that. It’s a VERY RECENT DEVELOPMENT, the whole “let’s wait until we’re fast-approaching menopause” thing, isn’t it?

        We’re fighting against uncounted years of history, and biology, by doing so. Whether this is good or bad, you can decide.

        That said, the “Duck Dynasty” guy’s lines are evidently meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but even if they’re not, I don’t really care… I don’t base ANY part of my life upon what some “celebrity” tells me to say, do, or think. And neither should anyone else.

        • Kathy W

          I agree. I wish that children could be working at a young age. Not overworking, I lost a great-uncle to child labor, but the ADD we have today is just normal frustration in children who were meant to be doing something productive and learning at the same time. I have a direct ancestor who became king at the age of 9 but ruled weakly but his 14 yr. old son was able to win back the loyalty of the kingdom, along with his mother. The kids in our family have unbelievable ADD.
          Children are not meant to be party animals but to have real purpose in life by contributing. My great-grandmother died young and my grandmother took over nursing her mother and doing all the child care and cooking and cleaning, too, at the age of 8 but always mourned that she had to give up school. She didn’t marry until 25.

          • Colleen Phillips

            Are you seriously advocating for forced child labor? I think today’s kids need to contribute in meaningful ways, too, but sentencing them to the grueling misery of having to take on adult responsibilities at the age of 8 is not something I would wish on any child. My parents suffered terrible hardships as young children during the Great Depression, and their experiences left permanent emotional scars. I’m not sure what your point is exactly, but once again, just because things happened a long time ago doesn’t mean they were good things or that we should go back to the Dark Ages.

          • clbrown

            Colleen, are you “trolling?” It sure sounds like it.

            Please show me where she said “forced child labor.” You can’t, because she DIDN’T.

            The reason that “children” are how they are is because that’s how they’ve been socialized to be. Go back a century, and “childhood” ended far, far earlier. Those who were eighteen were considered fully adult, by virtually every standard. Today, we still call twenty-five-year-olds “children” and they behave like children, in large part.

          • Colleen Phillips

            You are right – she didn’t say “forced.” Although I don’t think many children would march off to the factories voluntarily. But she is advocating for child labor, as long as they aren’t overworked to death, as was her great-uncle. Once again, you’re back to past customs and traditions. Yes, in the past, the lives of children were difficult and fraught with danger, and there really was no real childhood to speak of. Adolescence was not even recognized as a separate stage of development until early 20th century. If you think that was better, and if you would prefer your children grew up in that sort of society, then you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but personally, I’m glad I had a childhood with friends and toys and birthday parties and school and parents who loved me, and I wouldn’t have wanted anything less for my own kids. Certainly, there are a multitude of things wrong about our society right now, but I don’t think returning to the past is the answer. Ideally, we need to use everything we have learned in the past to move FORWARD and make a better world for our children’s future that avoids the pitfalls and mistakes of both the past and the present.

          • clbrown

            George Washington was considered an “adult” at the age of fourteen, when he was working as a surveyor, and had a large hand in the surveying of northern Virginia.

            He was not “force marched off to a factory.” It was simply culturally accepted that a young man would work, even as a child, on his own family’s property, and would, as soon as he was able, set out on his own. The fourteen year old George Washington was not a “CHILD.” He was a “young man.”

            I’m not “back to customs and traditions.” I’m talking about CULTURAL AND SOCIETAL NORMS which are not quite the same thing. Saying “everyone wears powdered wigs” is an example of discussing “customs and traditions.” It has no basis in biology, or in psychology, and is purely “situational.”

            But cultural and societal norms are different. We have “norms” saying that we do not get to murder each other. That we do not get to steal from each other. That we can’t just force ourselves on another person against their will. These are not “customs and traditions,” are they? They’re something else entirely. Surely you can recognize that distinction, can’t you?

            You make a reference to “moving forward.” But that’s a meaningless point. You’re simply talking about “change”… ALL CHANGE… as though it’s a good thing. But that’s nonsense. Progress is not a positive, nor is it a negative, term. It just means “change and movement.” A DISEASE has a “progression” as do wars… police respond to “crimes in progress.”

            What matters is not “change” but rather “what are you changing from” and “what are you changing to?”

            And frankly, when you’ve taken a wrong turn and are going in the wrong direction, it’s not a bad thing to turn around and go back to where you came from. Or do you just keep on driving and hope that eventually you’ll make it to where you planned to go, even if you have to drive all the way around the world to get there?

          • IvyDevilDog

            @clbrown: Such an awesome post. I love, love, love your instruction regarding “progress.” Just awesome. Be blessed in 2014!

          • Colleen Phillips

            OK – here’s my bottom line: I do not support a return to the “cultural and societal norms” of the past. The fact that our children get to play and have a childhood is a good thing, in my opinion. The fact that our children have an opportunity for an education instead of having to work to support their families is a good thing. The fact that a young girl can freely choose a path other than being a 16-year-old housewife and baby factory is positive change. The fact that we don’t routinely marry off young teenage girls is a good thing, because in the actual world we inhabit, it is a documented fact that teen marriages are high risk for divorce, and teen pregnancies are high risk for complications to both the mother and baby. (The health issues are biological.) The question of whether our children’s childhoods are too long, or whether our schools are offering the quality of education we desire is another question entirely, and those issues can be addressed. But I find the nostalgia expressed by so many commenters here for the good old days of 150 years ago or 2000 years ago or whatever to be puzzling. Adaptability to change is the key to survival and success in both the human and animal worlds. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

        • Colleen Phillips

          Many things were “standard practice” in times past, but that is no argument in their favor. Sure, people used to marry very young and have babies very young, but the infant mortality rates were so high that parents often didn’t even name their babies until they were a year old, and parents avoided becoming too emotionally attached because so many babies died in their first year. Maternal mortality rates were also very high, partly due to the high risks of teenage pregnancies whenever the young mother’s body was not even fully mature and the risks of premature birth and eclampsia were high. Customs, traditions, and practices of the past cannot logically be assumed to be better than what we do now just because they were common.

          • clbrown

            Sure, Colleen… but it’s pure arrogance to assume that we can “rewrite millions of years of culture and biology” in a few decades, just because “we say so,” isn’t it?

            Infant mortality rates were high, sure, but why is that? Was it because of the age of the parents? Or was it because of the lack of adequate medical care? If you took away modern medicine, are you certain that “infant mortality rates” would not rise to a level as high, or even higher, than those you refer to?

            This is what is called a “post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.” Basically “this is true and that is true, and so this must be because of that.” But it could be that the “cause” and the “effect” have been reversed, or that both are actually effects of some other cause, or even that there is literally no real relationship between the two at all.

            That third one is what’s the case here, I’d argue. The incidence of infant mortality in the past was due, not in any way, to the fact that the mothers were in their teens rather than in their twenties, but rather to the fact that they had to give birth without any of the modern tools and techniques which are the TRUE reason that infant mortality rates have fallen so dramatically. Age… except at the VERY low end of the scale, or the very high end of the scale… is less relevant than you might think.

          • Colleen Phillips

            Who are you quoting with “millions of years of culture and biology?” Actually, we don’t have millions of years of culture. If you believe evolution, it’s about 150,000 years, or, if you are a creationist, it’s only 6000 years of human culture.
            Our cultures and societies are constantly evolving and changing in complex ways – no one is rewriting anything.
            And I maintain that just because things were done a certain way in the past, that is not a valid argument for doing things that way now. The past is not always better; the myth of “the good old days” doesn’t usually hold up under scrutiny.
            I was not claiming that the infant and maternal mortality rates of the past were exclusively caused by young maternal age. I never said that. I was not committing the reasoning fallacy you accuse me of, hence the words “partly due to.” Of course I know that the level of medical care is paramount to a successful outcome.
            The important thing is that now, today, it is a well documented FACT that teenage pregnancies are statistically proven to be HIGH risk for both the mother and the unborn child, even with all the medical advances in the modern world. I listed some of the risks in a post above this one, so will not repeat myself here.
            One cannot make a valid case in favor of teenage marriage or teenage pregnancy based on any data that I know of, and certainly not because that’s the way it used to be.
            A logical fallacy based on tradition is the red herring known as “argumentum ad antiquitam.”

          • clbrown

            Colleen,

            Quotes have two different roles in prose, and you’re attempting to claim that the first mode is the only one. The first mode is attribution of a comment… in which case, the attribution must be provided. The second mode is equally valid, however, and is essentially the same as saying “so called.” It’s a way of using a phrase while making it clear that this is not the position held by the author writing the phrase. In the latter case, it is not going to be attributed.

            Both are absolutely valid and appropriate uses of this construct within the English language. As a rule, if there is no attribution given, the second mode is what is present.

            You tip your hand when you use the terms “believe in evolution” and “are a creationist” (instead of treating both in equal terms, linguistically… such as “believe in evolution” or “believe in creation”). Of course, the years you posit are not appropriately associated with the two positions either, but those on the atheist side of the argument like to quote those, so you’ve tipped your hand again.

            In my own case, I KNOW that evolution occurs, as a biological process. We have seen it, and observed it, and measured it. But this has only occurred, within the bounds of known science, within an individual species. We have never seen any creation of new species… not one, not ever… through this process, and statisticians can demonstrate (and have done so) that it is in effect a “statistical impossibility” to do so, especially when dealing with populations which reproduce sexually (and thus require at least two identical genetic patterns to be present in the same place, at the same time, and to “be into each other” as well!)

            So, there is (despite the tendency to claim otherwise) not the delineation between “those who believe in science” (by which them mean themselves, even when the people holding those positions are, in fact, scientific illiterates, as is very often the case!) and “those who reject science” (by which they mean “those who disagree with my own unsupported and unproven position”).

            I’m a practitioner of the hard sciences myself. I do this for a living. I’ve got a very high IQ and an extensive education. I know quite a bit about these topics. And yet, I also believe in God, and believe that all of what we see here is part of a process put into motion by God, following rules and mechanisms defined by God, and (on rare occasions, these days) even subject to alteration and direct intervention by God.

            I have not used the term “the good old days” by the way. You brought that up. That’s a straw-man, nothing more and nothing less.

            It is true that there is an “optimal” age range for child-bearing, due to physical development (a woman’s hip structure is still changing up until, typically, about twenty-two, after all, and broader hips are one of those features which help in successful childbirth). But you threw out a claim that it was due to young parents that the infant mortality was high. I simply disproved that with a very straightforward logical exercise. You can ASSERT anything you like… but that’s all you’re doing. Without data, your claim that “the old days of high infant mortality” is related to “younger marriage” is just nonsense.

            How is infant mortality, today, among younger mothers who receive proper prenatal and post-natal care for themselves and their babies? That data would be relevant. If you can provide that, and show that the infant mortality rates (and you’ll note, my definition leaves out “those who don’t seek out or obtain proper care”, and leaves them out intentionally) shows a direct correlation… a high “R” value, in other words… you’ll have a point. Otherwise, you’re just making unsupported claims and demanding that they be accepted as “facts” when they aren’t.

            You end up by saying that “a logical fallacy based on tradition is the red herring known as ‘argumentum ad antiquitam’.” True enough, but my argument is not based upon “tradition.” That’s what we call a “straw-man argument.”

            I said that my argument is based upon biology and cultural norms.

            If you are going to attempt to claim that all “cultural and social norms” are meaningless… you may want to take that issue up with some cultural anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, and so forth, who I’m sure can argue against that point far, far more effectively than I can. All I can say is that dismissing structures which have grown up, in parallel, in many different cultures which were geographically separate, and which share ONLY the common element of “human nature”… dismissing those is pure folly of the worst possible nature.

          • Colleen Phillips

            I’m sure you’re pleased with yourself now that you’ve written a dissertation, informed my knowledge of the proper use of quotation marks, and extolled your stratospheric IQ and vast education. As far as tipping my hand, you are reading way too much into my particular choice of words. I don’t need a lesson from you in evolution or special creation – been there, studied that. And only a fool would claim that all cultural and social norms are meaningless.
            I have learned that the people in my life who have taught me the most, the ones I consider my personal heroes, are strangely never the ones with the highest IQs. I have noticed, in my experience, that there is often an inversely proportional correlation between IQ and humility.
            During my 20+ years of studying the Bible, I’ve noted that the all-PKG God of Judeo-Christian tradition appears to value Verbal/Linguistic/Mathematical/Logical Intelligence not at all, but has a great deal to say about Wisdom.
            If you really do believe that returning to the former “cultural and social norm” of teen marriage and teen childbearing would benefit post-agrarian post-industrial modern technological society, then I wish you well.
            You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
            I’m sure the Duggar family is right on board with that idea – if those pesky daughters are married and preggers at 16, then we don’t need to worry about a college fund, do we?

          • clbrown

            Naturally, when your point has been discredited, you respond, not in a manner appropriate to a discussion, but in a manner more appropriate to “defense.” In other words, if you can’t support your own position, attack the PERSON who is making the alternative argument.

            Very poor practice, and in my experience, essentially the same as an admission that you recognize that you’re wrong… that is, that your position can’t be defended, and the opposing position can’t be attacked, and thus you shift focus to the person, and away from the subject matter.

            By the way, you’re arguing against another straw-man when you make the “case” that “wisdom” is not the same thing as “intelligence.” I have made no argument to the contrary, nor would I make any such claim. There have been, as we both well know, many very intelligent people throughout history who have been greatly lacking in the “Wisdom” area.

            However, let’s not misuse the term “intelligence,” either. “Rain Man” may have been able to do incredible mathematical feats, but that does not mean that the character was “intelligent,” now, does it?

            I’d define “intelligence” as “the ability to see things as they are, and to effectively and quickly analyze things in a systematic, logical fashion, consistent with reality.” That, of course, is a “short form” definition.. the full one would be a bit longer.. but it pretty well sums up things, doesn’t it?

            God created us with brains… certainly God did not intend for us to not use them. I’ve always found it amusing to see people who choose not to use their intelligence to its full potential claiming that “God doesn’t want us to think, God wants us to FEEL.” That’s nonsense, frankly, and I have no doubt that, your “best defense is a good offense” approach aside, you recognize that as well.

            I am gifted with an exceptional intellect, but I am not gifted in other ways. I’d never be able to play in the NBA, for example, nor perform acrobatics, and while my grasp of spacial relationships is excellent, my ability to process “images” is less (and thus, I could never be a master photographer or painter, for example). We all have our strengths, and our weaknesses, don’t we?

            My mention of my own intellectual capacity was due to the clear indication, from your previous post, that you were attributing “lack of intelligence” and “scientific illiteracy” to “belief in creation by God” as opposed to “belief in creation through unguided, random chemical processes.” I’ve heard that argument enough times (many times given by people who assumed, wrongly, that I was on their side of the topic!) that wanted to “nip it in the bud” immediately.

            Finally, your ongoing “defense by attack” approach ends up your post, above… you attempt to associate my own position with that of the kidnapping rapists you mention. How CHARMING of you. You know, full-well, that this is untrue, but because you cannot “win” the argument on the force of your own arguments, you try to “associate” me with these monsters, in an effort to transfer the EMOTIONAL response to them towards me.

            It’s a truly PATHETIC, not to mention reprehensible, tactic, on your part.

            That’s essentially the same thing as the so-called “Godwin’s Law” which I’m certain you’re familiar with. “Godwin’s Law” is an internet meme, of course, not a “law” in any real sense… but it does make a bit of sense, on a particular level.

            Essentially, “Godwin’s Law” states that in every argument, at some point the losing party will call their opponent “Hitler.”

            The valid portion of this concept should not include “Nazi” or “Hitler” specifically, however. The concept of “demonization through name-calling” is what this is really all about. So, if I were to say “you, Colleen, are just like Jeffrey Dahmer,” that would be another example of this. Such an effort is used solely to associate an EMOTIONAL RESPONSE to something deemed truly terrible to someone or something else, without the force of logic behind that.

            The shortcoming of “Godwin’s Law” is that it is often misapplied, claiming that any reference to something hateful (like Nazi-ism) is a sign that you’re losing the argument. This, of course, is untrue, but the use of this particular argument is very common, especially among those who truly fall in-line with that very ideology in many ways and yet don’t want this fact to be know.

            You see, we know that “Nazi” was just a slang term… the full name of the political movement was “The National Socialist Workers Party of Germany.” And we know that the policies and practices used by that organization are not uncommon among today’s “National Socialist” adherents. Sure, the specifics of the implementation may vary (in Germany, they chose to mask their own failures by associating them with a particular ethnicity, or rather a few ethnicities, while today this sort of hatred is directed against those who have a belief in God, and who refuse to back down on that subject), but the overall implementation is pretty consistent. Bigger, more powerful, more intrusive government with power over every aspect of the lives of the “common man” (or as Germany referred to them, “Volk”)… nationalization or “regulatory takeover” of certain key industries (in Germany, for example, this is where “Volkswagen” came from… nationalizing and consolidating a number of automotive manufacturers, under “governmental oversight”, while today, we see things like having safe, effective conventional light bulbs outlawed in favor of horrifically toxic, dense-mercury-spewing “compact flourescent” bulbs, not to help us, but to transfer more money into key “socio-business-political supporters” like General Electric).

            The analogies go on and on and on… but pointing them out as HISTORICAL PARALLELS to that done by other National Socialist movements, in the past, is “silenced” by the use of the so-called “Godwin’s Law,” while the real intent of this so-called “law” (to point out that the use of EMOTIONAL ASSIGNMENT, rather than factually-based argument, indicates the losing side of an argument) is not only ignored by those using it, they EMBRACE that tactic.

            Just as you’ve done, above.

          • Colleen Phillips

            Wow, you’ve been on quite a tear, haven’t you, and I have no idea why you are ascribing various statements and views to me, such as “kidnapping rapists,” and things about creationism which I never said and had no intention of saying. You are second guessing me and trying to “nip in the bud,” when the bud is of your own creation, not mine!

            You are way overestimating your own insightfulness, which is hardly a surprise since you have such a high opinion of your “exceptional intellect.” Sorry, but your false attempt at modesty by following your proclamation of “exceptional intellect” with a list of things you aren’t good at is as transparent as air.

            In my experience, the brightest people don’t have to go around proclaiming their superior intellect as you seem to need to do repeatedly. Smacks of insecurity and feelings of inadequacy. . . you’re probably a MENSA member. Whoa! Perish the thought! MENSA is way too small potatoes for you – it only requires you to be in the top 2% – practically everyone in my family qualifies for that! How about the Giga Society? You can get in there if your number is 196 or higher. Now that is some rarified air!

            If you prefer to think I’m attacking the messenger because I can’t answer your points, be my guest. But you have wandered off into a strange land that has nothing whatsoever to do with this article or my previous comments.

            The truth is that I really don’t like to talk to arrogant a–holes, and your level of arrogance is positively stunning, the equal of which I have rarely seen in all my years on this planet.

            Here’s a vocab word for you: Humility. Check it out.

            Oops – this probably means that you will come back and brag about how humble you are ;)

            You’ll undoubtedly have something to say, because people like you must always have the last word.

            Now you’re in big trouble! If you reply, then I’ve proven that indeed you are so arrogant and full of yourself that you must have the last word.

            So, you probably won’t reply specifically for that reason, and then I am happy because I’ve made you STOP!

            Happy New Year! From an uneducated knuckle-dragging ignorant southern redneck cracker clinging to my Smith and Wesson .380 (That’s a joke, son.)(Well, kinda sorta, anyway)

          • clbrown

            “Wow, you’ve been on quite a tear,”

            Not so much, no. But it’s almost cute to see you attempt to associate a “state of mind” with the fact that I can write well, and can counter every nonsensical ad-hominem you toss out.

            *************************************

            “and I have no idea why you are ascribing various
            statements and views to me, such as ‘kidnapping rapists,'”

            Oh, you have no idea why? So it wasn’t YOU who said the following? “I’m sure the Duggar family is right on board with that idea.” Right? No, you knew full-well what you were doing when you associated my stated position with those the kidnapping rapists who took that girl, now, didn’t you?

            *************************************

            “and things about creationism which I never said and had no intention of saying.”

            So, then, it wasn’t YOU who tossed this out? “Actually, we don’t have millions of years of culture. If you believe
            evolution, it’s about 150,000 years, or, if you are a creationist, it’s only 6000 years of human culture.”

            No, no, I’m pretty sure that was you who said that, wasn’t it? It’s entirely false, of course, but it’s a standard misperception which those on one side of that argument always put out to denigrate those on the other side… doing so by claiming “those other guys deny science,” of course.

            So, you can claim “innocence” but your own words are on the record here, so your denials ring entirely hollow. But feel free to keep on trying.

            *************************************

            “You are second guessing me and trying to ‘nip in the bud,’ when the bud is of your own creation, not mine!”

            As I’ve just proven, above, no, that’s a lie on your part.

            *************************************

            “You are way overestimating your own insightfulness, which is hardly a surprise since you have such a high opinion of your ‘exceptional intellect.’ Sorry, but your false attempt at modesty by following your proclamation of ‘exceptional intellect’ with a list of things you aren’t good at is as transparent as air.”

            And again, the far-fringe-leftist is so convinced of her own “superiority” that she can’t even consider that, in any area, she’s actually “less capable” than those who she’s chosen to denigrate. Got it.

            You, once again, fail to address the POINTS, and instead choose to focus on the PERSON. This, of course, is pure Alinsky… pick the target, polarize the discussion, personalize the attack. It isn’t a very effective technique, though, since far, far too many of us who you consider your “enemy” are, in fact, entirely familiar with that tactic, and moreso, are far less susceptible to that than those on your side are (since we tend to be more driven my reason, and less by emotion).

            Keep on using the Alinsky-recommended rules, and you’ll find that they are utterly ineffectual any any level, other than to be reflected back on you (where they will, of course, work to significantly greater effect, being emotionally-driven as you are!)

            *************************************

            “In my experience, the brightest people don’t have to go around proclaiming their superior intellect as you seem to need to do repeatedly. Smacks of insecurity and feelings of inadequacy. . . you’re probably a MENSA member. Whoa! Perish the thought! MENSA is way too small potatoes for you – it only requires you to be in the top 2% – practically everyone in my family qualifies for that! How about the Giga Society? You can get in there if your number is 196 or higher. Now that is some rarified air!”

            And again, she ignores the actual argument and instead continues in her attack on the person… using a tactic which she probably seriously believes will “hurt” at some level. It doesn’t. It’s utterly pathetic, in fact.

            But for the record, I am not part of any “group” of that nature, nor did I “proclaim” anything to put others down… only to refute the claim which those on the far-fringe-left love to make, which is that “those who believe in God are stupid, brainless idiots who reject science.” That’s a lie, but it’s a lie which far, far too many on the far-fringe of the modern “progressive movement” (which is, from a historical standpoint, almost indistinguishable from the historical Italian National Socialist… aka “Fascist”… movement) have chosen to adopt.

            *************************************

            “If you prefer to think I’m attacking the messenger because I can’t answer your points, be my guest.”

            This, of course, isn’t a “preference,” it’s an observation of fact. You have “attacked the messenger” and have refused to answer the points I raised. So, it’s not a matter of “preference” to believe that this is what you’re doing, it’s a matter of fact. While the exact REASONING which might be going through your mind would be something I could only guess at (though it would be a very valid “educated guess” of course, as you are pretty transparent!), the FACTS of your behavior are not subjective at all.

            *************************************

            “But you have wandered off into a strange land that has nothing whatsoever to do with this article or my previous comments.”

            Not really. You are the one who accused the majority here, who do not go along with your “this guy is in favor of child rape” argument and instead recognize it for what it is… a suggestion that, in his experience, marrying young (both male and female partners being young… significantly younger than is common today!) is, in his opinion, likely to lead to a more “unified” couple than marrying in your thirties or forties likely will.

            *************************************

            “The truth is that I really don’t like to talk to arrogant a–holes, and your level of arrogance is positively stunning, the equal of which I have rarely seen in all my years on this planet. Here’s a vocab word for you: Humility. Check it out. ”

            So says the woman who accuses anyone who disagrees with her false condemnation of another human being as being in favor of abduction, rape, and child abuse. It’s quite remarkable to see you pretend to be the voice of “humility” here, when you’ve shown far, far more arrogance than anyone else in this entire conversation. “If you disagree with me, you’re evil” is about the single most arrogant thing any human being can say, after all!

            *************************************

            “Oops – this probably means that you will come back and brag about how humble you are ;) You’ll undoubtedly have something to say, because people like you must always have the last word. Now you’re in big trouble! If you reply, then I’ve proven that indeed you are so arrogant and full of yourself that you must have the last word. So, you probably won’t reply specifically for that reason, and then I am happy because I’ve made you STOP!”

            Wow, you must’ve been VERY proud of yourself for coming up with what seemed, to you, to be a wonderful bit of logic, by which you “win” no matter what happens.

            The problem, of course, is that this argument on your part is only “valid” within your own mind, and is not valid in any other context. All you’ve done is said “I win no matter what” and stamped your feet, really, really hard…

            I do not need to “brag” about how “humble” I am, so that falls flat. I know my own strengths, and my own weaknesses. Unfortunately for you, you seem not to know your own weaknesses.

            No, Colleen, you can not use that sort of flawed “logic” to force others to obey your commands. You may WISH you could, but you can’t. Grown-ups get that, but the sort of “argument” you just used does seem to make really really good sense to children, I’ve noticed.

            *************************************

            “Happy New Year! From an uneducated knuckle-dragging ignorant southern redneck cracker clinging to my Smith and Wesson .380 (That’s a joke, son.)(Well, kinda sorta, anyway)”

            Sure it is. You do realize that part of the definition of a “joke” is that it must actually contain HUMOR. That’s not a joke, that’s smarmy, self-righteous sarcasm… something entirely different.

            You do seem to have a few positions which you’ve expressed which I’d agree with… you’re not a total fool. For example, your observation of how the so-called “global warming” thing is so deeply flawed is pretty spot-on, and your comments re: the gutted and repurposed “NASA” now is nothing but a propaganda arm for the WH are right in line with my own position. But, based upon your tone, I can’t tell if you’re being serious, or if you think you’re engaging in “parody” when you say those things… it seems to be more akin to “parody” than to serious, intelligent discussion, after all… and you do seem to be trying to “stir the pot” in those cases, rather than to actually trying to get to any particular point. In other words, once again, it’s all about EMOTION rather than REASON, it seems.

            You can have the “last word” yourself if you like, now. You’ve proven yourself to be snide, self-righteous, judgmental, hate-filled, deceptive, and generally a nasty person, in this thread, and in particular in your interaction with me. There’s not much more you can accomplish here, is there?

          • Colleen Phillips

            Look up the Duggar family, genius.
            They have a show on TLC.

            Your extreme verbosity is just as amazing as your arrogance.Another thing I have noticed about highly intelligent people: they infuse a great deal of meaning into just a few words. I admire conciseness and I wish I were better at it. You would benefit from some improvement in that area as well.

            As for your bumbling attempts to figure me out, I’ll save you the trouble. I am a libertarian leaning small gov’t conservative.

            I’ve been a Catholic, an atheist, a Protestant, and an agnostic. Apparently, I can’t make up my mind, but then, my experiences throughout life have colored my spirituality, or lack thereof.
            I despise Obama and all his evil scheming cronies. I detest Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Eric Holder, Kathleen Sebelius, and Janet Napolitano, to name a few, Obamacare makes me sick. I detest all those people, organizations, and policies that are destroying our economy, our military, our foreign alliances, and the very fabric of our society.

            And, I’m a Southerner who’s amused by the popular Yankee misperception that we are all a bunch of inbred ignorant redneck trailer trash. Hence, my “joke.”
            And, I love the movie “Serenity” and the “Firefly” TV series. And Dr. Who, of course.

            Now it’s time to chill and watch some football.

            Peace, brother.

    • Colleen Phillips

      I like to form my opinions based on facts. Neither you nor the people who responded to you has any of those pesky things to offer. “Sentiment” is useless to this discussion and so is anyone’s personal anecdotes about the experiences of his/her grandparents. Teen marriages are statistically much more likely to fail than marriages entered into when the parties are mature adults. Neurological development continues until at least age 25. Most people don’t even know who they are at the age of 15 or even 18. Also, teen pregnancies involve significantly higher risks to both the mother and the unborn baby. The risk of premature birth for the baby and all the potential disabilities that go along with it (blindness, brain bleeds and damage resulting in cerebral palsy and mental retardation, lung damage, intestinal necrosis) are much higher for teen pregnancies, and the high risk of pre-eclampsia endangers the life of both mother and child. Of course, risks are also increased for pregnancies after a maternal age of 35. Whatever was the custom in ancient (Bible) times does not necessarily translate into healthful or sound practice today.

      • master of sinanju

        Yes, it is so much better for young girls to have lots of sex, with lots of boys before marriage, let’s throw numerous abortions in the mix too.

        • Colleen Phillips

          Did I say that? And your point is what, exactly? No, what is “better” is young men and women waiting for sex, marriage, babies, whatever, until they are physically, socially, and emotionally ready to accept the adult responsibilities that go along with all these things. Period.

  • Deborah G

    nayone who takes that seriously is a moron and a liberal moron at that

    • clbrown

      Isn’t that sort of redundant to say, though?

      • Deborah G

        Yes but it needs to be redundent for dunderheads

  • Allen

    If you want to get all huffed up about young girls, then criticize Muslim men who what to marry them at 9 yrs old and will kill them having sex or kill them if they are not virgins. Get a life.

  • Jim Smith

    He was joking for Christ’s sake!

  • mule man

    Grow up people he was kidding !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Deborah G

      That is what liberals do twist words, make something out of nothing they are good at that they made a President out of an empty suit or an empty chair as Eastwood showed us

  • CountryBoy

    Ask YOUR Grandparents at what age that they got married…… YOU may be surprised as how young they were……

  • loulai

    There really is no controversy as most recognize that Robertson was being facetious. The left and the militant homosexual lobby are on a witch hunt against this man. Since they didn’t get their way in the first round they are continuing to stomp their feet.
    Since all of the Robertsons have long term marriages, beating the national average by a mile, I guess their values of family loyalty and faith set a pretty solid foundation.

    • Susan24

      Yeah, he was most definitely being facetious. He has one of the most dry senses of humor I have ever seen too. There is also no way in hell he could get away with saying something like that and still breathe to see the next day, not with all those women in his family….lol.

      • loulai

        Correct-all those STRONG women in his family.

  • Windrider

    Well, the Phil Robertson haters are just trying to dig up any dirt they can on this Christian Redneck……I’m sure without a doubt all of their actions have been 100 percent perfect for years on end…….Nary a skeleton in their closets!!……..If you believe that, I’ve got an inside track on some great lake property for sale cheap!!

    • clbrown

      Remember the leftist motto… “If you don’t have any standards to begin with, you can never be accused of violating your standards.”

  • OutdoorFrontiers

    And if I remember correctly, back in 2008 didn’t Obama say that he believed that marriage was blessed by The Creator between a man and a woman? So if anyone is going to crucify someone for making statements that they didn’t believe, let’s start with out Muslim-In-Chief….

    • RLC

      He also said that he believed marriage should be between a man and a woman, he said that if one of his teenage daughters “made a mistake” he wouldn’t want them “burdened..”, he said he was a Christian, he said, he said, why, he’s said a lot of crap!
      The only thing he said that apparently only a few of us heard and understood to be true was “we are only 5 days away from fundamentally changing America”.
      And here we are. Right and wrong going head to head.

  • http://FreedomOutpost.com/ Tim Brown

    Phil is right on….we are retarding maturity in America and pushing young people into temptation, by demanding they wait to get married. God brought puberty at an early age for a reason. Our culture has just lost its ability to bring the mind to maturity along with the body. Just look at Joseph and Mary, both probably around 15 or 16 years of age. We can also see the maturity, in our own country just a couple of hundred years ago in men who were only 14 and yet they were ambassadors to other countries.

    BTW, there is a HUGE difference in the pedophilia of Islam and what Phil is talking about.

    • clbrown

      Not arguing with you, but curious… who was an ambassador to another nation at the age of 14? I know that George Washington was working (as a surveyor) at that age, but I am unaware of any ambassadors.

      • leewacker

        Oh, dry up! I would trust a fourteen year old long before I would trust John Kerry, Hillary Clinton or most of the other old fools who are only doddering around the capitol these days!

        • clbrown

          “Oh, dry up?” Was that directed towards me? If so… why?

      • http://FreedomOutpost.com/ Tim Brown

        John Quincy Adams was ambassador to France at 14.

        • clbrown

          I didn’t know that… thanks, Tim!

          • Soxtory

            JQA,s father was the ambassador. He served as secretary and interpreter. He was precocious but not that much.

          • clbrown

            That makes a lot more sense. He aided his father… worked, in a job which today would be considered an “adult job,” but as a sort of apprenticeship.

          • http://FreedomOutpost.com/ Tim Brown

            my pleasure:)

    • leewacker

      You’re right, but let’s face it! Boys were expected to do a man’s job by the time they were 15! Girls could cook, sew, clean and do chores as well as handle the children by the time they were 14! Now, we have unions who are scared to death to allow young men to learn a trade, because it might mean someone has to either retire or teach the newcomer. Both boys and girls were expected in those days to actually work for the good of the family—now, all they get is a burger flipping job only IF there are no illegals in the woodwork!
      Kids these days have been robbed, they don’t know how to work properly, they cannot do much of anything—all because we have put them on a pedestal, and expect them to do nothing!

      • http://FreedomOutpost.com/ Tim Brown

        I agree they have been robbed. My second daughter is set to be married in the Fall next year after she turns 16. She has a good man with good work ethic, his own house and will take good care of her. She loves children and has learned to manage the home from her mom, who is one of the GREATS (at least in my book, yeah I know I’m biased:).

        However, part of that robbing is our parenting. If we don’t teach them good work ethics at home, which is where most of the work actually took place in times past, they will never develop it outside the home.

  • Kathy W

    Then she’ll divorce your butt when she grows up and figures out she isn’t happy in the marriage. She also shouldn’t be having babies at that age. Wait until your 20’s. It does sound tongue-in-cheek.

    • AG Dot Com!

      It was a different age. Phil is talking from the perspective of his era and being judged by the perspective of our era. Anachronism by definition.

      • Kathy W

        Thanks for the new word. I agree he is an ‘eccentric’ older person and we used to tolerate them as cute, esp. when they began with, “In the good old days.”

        • AG Dot Com!

          “Used to tolerate”? When I was growing up, we did not “tolerate” our elders. We respected them, and we listened to them. I take your statement as a glaring example of what is going wrong with our society today.

          “Tolerate”, indeed. Here’s another new word for you: “HUBRIS”.

          • Kathy W

            Another new word. Yes, we were pretty arrogant in our teens. We, of course, treated them with tolerance and respect but inside we thought they were idealizing a pretty rough era. You know, the old “I walked to school 6 miles everyday with no shoes” kind of story. My dad personally supported the whole family with his paper route.

  • marineh2ominer

    Today if your ant to marry a virgin you probably have to go even younger in most cases . Why a virgin ? Because there is no other way to tell if she had one sexual ” tryst ” or a thousand .

    • AG Dot Com!

      Or you could just convert to islam, blow yourself up, and collect your 72 virgins on the other side… no guarantee they won’t all be Rosie O’Donnell look-alikes tho…

    • Jean

      And if you want to marry a virgin, you need to be one.

  • AG Dot Com!

    Dear Sweet Baby Jesus on a tricycle, people. Phil is talking from the perspective of someone who lived in that day and age when such things were the NORM. Ask my grandmother how much my grandfather “controlled her”. He insisted on dinner at 5pm sharp, daily. She would wink at us grand-kids and push the hands on the clock back whenever she felt like it. My grandmother was married at 16, had her first before she was 17 in 1934 (my dad), and had 15 more, only 13 of whom lived.

    Phil Robertson is being held to an artificial modern standard created by bad sitcom TV where “dads are idiots”, “women are only smart if they stay single”, and “kids are smarter than any adult”. We have allowed the crap on TV to set the tone for our society – and in my opinion, it has utterly gutted Real America.

    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94rcOVJBMYQ Winston Blake

      A most prophetic sculpture…

  • chuckles

    I married mine at 17 and my father married my mother at 14. My mother was married over 65 years before she died and I’m at 43 and counting. Even as he was joking, their is a grain of truth, IMO, that I trained my wife and my father trained my mother at a young age. Once you get set in your ways, it’s tougher to forgive and submit from both parties. Kids used to living alone have to allow the other person some room as they get used to living together. Today, I see married’s with separate bank accounts and fights over almost every facet of their personalities. When you marry young, it seems you just forgive more if you are truly in love. You are so dumb, you have to learn things together to make it.

    • leewacker

      Um, you have said one thing that really, really is offensive to me: You “trained your wife, ” and your dad “trained your mother?” Now, isn’t that a wee bit chauvinistic and overbearing? In either case, it is “Control!” Both my husbands tried that with me—but, it didn’t work—I’m here and they aren’t—they both died trying!

      • http://reasontostand.org/ Wes Widner

        “Both my husbands tried that with me—but, it didn’t work—I’m here and they aren’t—they both died trying!”

        Wow, you sound like QUITE a catch.

      • master of sinanju

        Your feelings got hurt,you are offended huh? You gonna commit suicide now? If you are not a Christian, then you know not of what you speak! What did you do, murder them?

      • chuckles

        I’m still alive and still happily married after 43 years. Maybe if you became a help mate to either one of your husbands, they would still be here and you wouldn’t die alone. You sound like a fun woman that is proud her marriage was miserable. Believe me, at 17, my wife couldn’t write a check, drive a stick shift, and so many other things I can’t name, She needed and WANTED help. I showed her what t do and how to do it, in every task. It cut out a lot of crap and fighting. She’s done it all with me, even stabbed a transmission after I installed the clutch. She’s never been a helpless, stupid woman shopping the malls all day after watching her soaps on TV. She handles all the banking and I don’t have to worry about missing money, bad credit or bounced checks. I even taught her to cook the simple things I knew how to cook as a bachelor. Today she is a great cook in her own right and can bake and decorate wedding cakes. I would never leave her or forsake her because she is part of me. I certainly wouldn’t revel in her death. I don’t know if my heart could stand the damage of losing her. As far as me controlling her, it’s not control when you love each other. Jesus is in control of our marriage and we submit.
        As far as my mother, what could she possibly know about life at 14? If my dad didn’t train her, who would?

  • Jesus is God

    You people have got to lighten up, he’s kidding. Yes he married when he was 17 and Kay was 16, but look at his own children. Willie was married at 21 Jase when he was 22 and unlike most people, they are still married, and happily.

    • Huffer

      He didn’t go into ALL the parameters of marriage, just one, and yes, that was tongue-in-cheek! He is speaking to sane people who understand love and the biblical sense of marriage where the man treats his wife better then himself because he loves her.
      These jerks, who blow up over everything Phil says, are ignorant and think he means controlling the spouse! They cannot understand the ways of God and the men who follow Him….

  • El Mac

    Sounds to me like he was using humor to make a point. Regardless, “WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?” :)

  • Adhemarde

    Phil is right. I got married at 19, and had to elope because everyone, including my parents, said I was wrong. My wife and I have been married now for 43 years, and are just as excited about spending the rest of our lives together now as we were back then. We have three grown children, five grandchildren and counting (two of our kids have only been married a year), and would have had more if we could have. The current mindset is for kids to start having sex as soon as they reach puberty, if not before, and to continue to live a life of depravity and sin until they possibly marry in their ’30’s when they get tired of running around. Our social institutions are crumbling, and what is left of “marriage” is whatever obama and the liberals decide to call by that name, whether it be between two or more men, women, or probably animals next. Phil suggests that people marry at an early age and work at their marriage every day, as he has done, rather than running to the divorce court as soon as their self-centered demands are not met by their equally self-centered spouse. What a nice contrast between Phil and a “president” who advocates perversion and the destruction of the family. Phil for President!

  • RLC

    Amazing. The ability some have to take something, distort it and then make one heck of a ridiculous argument out of what then amounts to crap. Phil Robertson is NOT advocating grown men go out and marry 15 year old girls or “child molestation”! The really sad commentary on our society of today is if Phil had said, and went around the country promoting fathers knocking up their 15 year old daughters then taking them to
    get an abortion Time magazine not only would put him on the cover they’d drop back
    and call him MAN of the Year!
    With that said, I am not surprised that this sort of BS attack on him and his family has continued.
    God help us, seriously, we need it.

  • Charles Giles

    This is all opinionated and has nothing to do with the WORD of God’s direction for our lives, I agreed with him previously but this has nothing to do with the other.
    I know of many men who have married later in life to women older than their twenties and their lives are just as favorable , and maybe more favorable than those marrying young women.

    • Grayzel

      The same could be said for young marriages so what is your point exactly?

  • DOOM161

    Robertson didn’t make any comments that indicate a fear of homosexuals.

    • Tim

      Who’s afraid of them, what they do is simply repulsive to God and mankind….sorry.

  • victoriadelacy

    In the earlest days of this nation, it was probably normative for people to marry even younger than that, but at that same time the life expectancy of their generation was maybe half of what it is today. In this generation, many are deciding to get established in a career first and then get married, so it is not unusual for couples to be starting families well into their thirties instead of the late teens and early twenties as had been the case in previous generations. The faith issue is important since the Bible tells Christians to not be unequally yoked. With regard to cooking, it is good to have that skill ahead of marriage but certainly it is not difficult to learn what works for the couple as you go, which is why there are so many cookbooks in libraries today in addition to thousands of recipes of all kinds at one’s fingertips over the internet. Robertson is reflecting good character and values as being key to a happy marriage and that in itself is correct. More importantly, he and his wife are living a good example of the same before their posterity.

  • USAmerican100

    So what is wrong with this, it’s what all the La Raza Mexicans promote and the liberals are so cool with it they pay them to have a half dozen kids by age 25 with our tax money, at least in California.

    • sanchezmikea

      You really want to go there, most “raza” I know are gainfully employed, mainly because the will work hard and for less then other crackers. The also join the military at a high rate, and are better represented (percentage) by medal of honor recipients.

      • Tim

        Most I know are ungrateful crooks, they would steal from their mommas, and if you don’t believe me spend some time in Miami.

        • sanchezmikea

          I suggest you change the church you go to, or stop going to the bar, or wherever you like to hang out with these people, unless of course you go to preach the Gospel of Peace.

          • Tim

            I am forced to meet them in the workplace.

          • sanchezmikea

            Maybe you can outwork them, instead of out talking them.

        • Revere

          Miami is populated mostly by Cubans, not Mexicans.

          • Tim

            Do I have to say it?

      • clbrown

        “Crackers?” Seriously, you want to use that sort of language? I’m guessing you’re black, right? So, given that, how would you like for us to refer to you?

        • Tim

          Nope just another ungrateful job stealing unmentionable, (they’ll censor me if I say the truth).

        • sanchezmikea

          No I’m a cracker of Hispanic decent, similar to Zimmerman. Cracker is what blacks call us.

          • clbrown

            Well, it’s an obnoxious term, you probably oughta not use it, even if (as was apparently the case) you intended it “tongue-in-cheek.”

            And let’s be clear… “La Raza” is not “all Hispanics.” It’s an ORGANIZATION, not an ethnicity. The term simply means “the race” and it is, frankly, a “Hispanic supremacist” organization… every bit as hateful as “the Aryan Nation” or so forth is.

            You are, in large part, correct… the majority of Hispanics I know are as you describe them. But then again, these folks are not part of “La Raza.” “La Raza” is a HATE GROUP, plain and simple, and should be treated as such.

          • sanchezmikea

            Let me assure you, you need not worry about this, I know of which I speak. La Raza is more code talk for “progressives” or socialist then for any criminal like organization which I will not mention, but I am sure you can find on your own. As a full blooded “chicano” I am proud to be considered a “cracker”.
            This country, the greatest, most generous in history, was built by “crackers”. As I tell all my “white” friends (I have many) we “Hispanics” are only following the bible mandate to go forth and multiply, and you too will be blessed and a blessing to our nation to do so, in this statement I include all nationalities. We as a nation have the right in fact duty to control our borders, so those doing so do so properly, if you wonder where I stand on that. My father, two brothers and son are veterans (my son served 2 combat tours in Iraq, and I am very proud of him)

        • sanchezmikea

          notice I said “other cracker” infers being part of the larger cracker group

      • USAmerican100

        I said “Mexicans” as in recent immigrants. You are an American not Mexican.

        • sanchezmikea

          Actually recent immigrants tend to be even more patriotic. If you are talking about cartels etc. that’s a different subject.
          Most of what people tend to refer to as Mexican, are really citizens, or Americans of Mexican decent and remember all those “anchor” babies are also American, maybe more so then our president.

          • USAmerican100
          • UnCL3

            I lived in Orange and LA counties for 42 years. The illegal immigrants have been allowed to ruin CA.

          • sanchezmikea

            Of course, your universe is UTUBE, you need to get out a little.
            I was born and raised in Los Angeles, and can tell you this is only people excersising free speech, a hundred times more US flags have been burned by “white, middle class” Americans, that have been or ever will be by Americans of Mexican decent. When our blood spills in defence of that flag, it is red, just like the rest of the patriots who defend our nation.

          • USAmerican100

            I was at every one of those protests in person. They are even worse in real life than what is shown on U-tube. Treason and invasion are not protected by 1st Amendment. If you were really defending the US flag you would be with the Minutemen on the border.

          • sanchezmikea

            I just don’t feel threatened the way you do, perhaps if we went after the high dollar illegal immigrants, like say, Canadians, who take good paying jobs Americans want. I am 100% for a bracero program like Bush tried to get but Democrats (with the help of some republicans) derailed it. With the bracero program, our farms and industries get cheap labor, and the workers get minimum wage along with regular benefits deducted from their checks and contributed by the employer.
            No to mention all the Chinese coming into this country, just go to LA and look around, all up the 10 and 60 freeways, surely they can’t all be legal, not with ICE finding those sea containers filled with them. Sure some people at the demonstration dissed our flag, but I would bet 60/40 that most of them we US citizens, just like the so called 99%. Really who is the greater threat, some people who want in, or those of us who are really traitors to our constitution.

          • sanchezmikea

            My son did 2 tours in Iraq, and his best friend gave is life, my son narrowly missed giving his. All while you were playing patriot with a bunch of unarmed civilians practicing their first amendment rights. Both my brother in laws served in Nam, and are now dead, I believe agent orange had something to do with it. My two brothers and father volunteered and served. I hate it when pseudo patriots talk a good battle, and really think they deserve a medal.

          • sanchezmikea

            Concerning street crime the FBI still considers the Hells Angeles, (a strictly white gang) the most violent criminal enterprise in America. So perhaps you should examine your own house, before trying to clean up someone else.

          • sanchezmikea

            I can hardly wait to read your thought on Americans of African desent, or heaven forbid, mideasterners or native Americans. Just because your ancestors may have come from Europe (if they did) doesnt make you the judge of all things American. Our Constitution is what defines our nation, not some ethinic centralized thinking.

  • paintinc56

    You all knew this was coming. By the time the leftist propaganda machine media is done the Robertson family will be as hated as Sarah Palin.
    Meanwhile Harvey Milk, homosexual PEDOPHILE, was honored with a stamp bearing his likeness.

    • http://gravatar.com/hummingharpman hummingharpman

      Another roll of stamps to toss back at any postal clerk stupid enough to try to sell me something like that, and call it “U.S postage”, that along with the arselifter catering EID stamp for the eidiots!

  • Sgt. York

    tell em phil,iffin they don’t like it they can kiss your cuntry ass

    • Lloyd

      Marsha Kay was born Dec. 21 1950 she is 63 years old they did not say that!

  • Tim

    This is coming out of the UK? what are they trying to do undermine him? Piss off Limey.

    • http://gravatar.com/hummingharpman hummingharpman

      Thanks for the clarification Tim. The fact that this short, likely cut and grossly edited video was put out by Limey lowlifes, like Piers Morgan and his ilk, explains a hell of a lot!…Phil IS Christian, not an arselifter, like the pukes who put this crap out try to make him appear!…BUT if Ol’ Phil were really an arselifter, this would NOT even be posted, or any attempt made to make it an issue!

    • clbrown

      It’s coming from a “gay-friendly” (aka “gay advocacy” to be more forthright) organization.

      “GQ” magazine used to be something some straight guys would read, but it’s long since become a “gay rag,” frankly.

      The Daily Mail, by contrast, isn’t that far gone… but it IS the UK rag most well-known for having a leftist-slant, and for engaging in what I think you’d have to agree are “gutter reporting” techniques… for example, another of their “headlines” for the day was this one: “Katie Holmes strips down to hot pink bikini as tiny dancer Suri Cruise shows off her balletic poise by the pool” (complete with photos, of course!)

  • Yolantta

    Love Phil, and that remark is true about younger girls. More than half of “older” women don’t know how to cook or keep a house, and experience one broken heart after another with non-committal relationships. Wish I had started out early and avoided ALL THE MESS in my life!!

  • Jill

    He is being funny. Also the UK wants Phil gone because he is pro-gun. The reason they are after Phil is because he represents gun rights. That is why all these liberal groups want him gone. The big push by the Billionaires in the world is to disarm the U.S. Hence Bloomberg and his friends. That is he real issue.

  • louie koucharis

    phil speaks his mind,i rather hear the truth than a lie,i will watch phil robertson on tv ,unlike when faggot obahma and his wife magilla,they are not allowed on my tv sets

  • dan from ohio

    whats the problem,my parents are from Kentucky and my mom married my father at 13 and had three children .I was her first at 16,things were different back then.My mother is a strong willed woman and never cared she married young.

  • sanchezmikea

    For 5 thousand years “the unspeakable sin” was taboo, for since the dawn of man, man and women have joined to form family at soon as procreation was possible. Today, the “enlightened” feel it necessary to indoctrinate from the age of 4 to 26, as the common sense of progressive teachings goes out the window, and more time is necessary to imprint it in the citizens.

  • lizaz

    The guttersnipes are coming out of their dirty holes to try and discredit the Robertsons any way they can….I say ignore them, they have so many perverted skeletons in their closets, they continually try to cover their deviant behavior by publicizing slanted stories slandering this family. We support the Robertsons and Phil in particular….he has a right to his opinion and no amount of whining and crying by these perverts will change that!!!

  • bungicord

    Muslims marry their 9 year old daughters to 45 year old men (for a hefty dowery)
    Look at Mohammad who not only married one but advocated using them for pleasure.
    They are continually arrested all over the world for kidnapping 12-15 year olds
    and selling them into prostitution.
    And Access Hollywood, is blaming Phil for
    an amusing speech? When I think about it back in the day 15 year old girls
    routinely married and were thought old hags at the age of 18.
    You
    politically correct Hollywood morons forget about one of your own Doug
    Hutchinson 51 marrying 16 year old Courtney Stodden, ( knocked up at the time)
    last year. You slathered all over that union. “True December love” etc. etc.
    (see utube)
    Hypocrites!

  • Marilynn Reeves

    Country people are diffent from city folks, which in most ways is good. We do tend to marry earlier and have a good work together attitude. We also tend to marry men 5-6 years older than we are. I was 16 my husband was 21. Finished school and we both worked hard both on our jobs and on the farm. Money was tight in the begining and we learned how to budget and save. Never depended on our folks or credit. Now after 51 years we are still best friends,have good retirements($5000 a month),over $250,000 that we draw monthly intrest on and a very nice farm that is all paid for.
    Never went through some of the trials Phil and his wife did and for that I think GOD.

  • bossmanham

    //While the speech given in Georgia is recounted in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek manner, in light of Robertson’s strong views on traditional family values – protected by the First Amendment – they seem slightly inappropriate.
    Well Phil should have known there’d have been that dumb flack about his comments on homosexual behavior in 2013 back in 2009, eh? Never joke about anything people. The media will dig it up and tar you with it.

    • master of sinanju

      ….”Put on the armor of God….” Tar won’t stick to righteousness.

  • Guy Nevins

    Many cultures of the world, marry off their daughters younger than that just to receive their dowries. These girls are considered old and not worth marrying by the time they are 20. Latinos generally start about 14, which is legal in Mexico. Do your homework before criticizing others.
    Even in the USA, about 100 years ago, these young marriages were NORMAL. My great-grandmother was married at 13 and started having kids by age 16, Such was life on the farm in the mid-west. My grandmother was married at 16, here in California.

  • Dan W

    As the little boy in the commercial said ,” He made a funny” People from north of the Pea River don’t have sense enough to get in out of the rain . These statements by Phil used to make my sister made as heck ’til she met and talked to him and he told her all the cooking/duck pickin stuff was just an act.

  • vincent

    So let’s look at the issues that libs don’t discuss:

    1) Muslims are marrying girls as young as 8 years old (the man is alot older in a few cases).
    2) George Michael and Elton John have shown vocal support for proposals in England to lower the age of consent. Homosexual groups are pushing the consent law changes with fury in Europe.
    3) What percentage of sexual misconduct among homosexuals involves boys under 18?

    Is it possible that the progressives need a diversion from their current agenda? Duck Dynasty controversies divert conservatives from amnesty plans for 12 million illegal immigrants, National ID, gun restrictions and carbon taxes that will cause utility and food prices to sharply rise!

    And there are GOP members working to push these laws through. Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, Rubio, McCain, Boehner, Ryan, McConnell, Hatch, Lindsay Lohan and other RINOS continue to spit in the face of conservatives, while popping up on Hannity and other Faux shows.

  • bossmanham

    Marrying older is a recent phenomenon, and it’s also a symptom of a culture that is losing its roots. Think of the benefits of marrying young; you avoid much sexual temptation and sin since you’re able to copulate with your actual wife when your hormones are running their wildest. There’s honestly nothing wrong with this.

  • Henry

    What he is saying is truth. If you wait until these girls are 18-20 years old they will have been brainwashed by the Marxist(democracts) and will try to run everything with their liberal leanings.Don’t ask them to cook they will ask you “what is cook” as they all eat at the fast food joints

  • AG Dot Com!

    One point to note here … watch Phil and Ms.Kay interact, and tell me he “controls” her. I don’t think you could control a woman like that, and I don’t think he tries. I believe they have defined male and female roles in a loving and healthy marriage. You know, all those things the lefties, socialists, homosexuals, and feminists either swear don’t exist or try to convince us are harmful,stifling, and repressive.

  • regulus30

    does anyone really think the crazy radical left is going to stop short of attempting to destroy this wealthy common phenom? He is their poster boy of for what big city elitists think all of the rest of we the people are;; it is a lesson in the division of this nation.;;HUNGER GAMES 2014.

  • Janet S

    Phil is a hick. So what. Live and let live. He has a right to his opinions and his way of life. Life would be boring if we all thought alike. I remember the good old days when liberals where for tolerance, Now most are self-righteous, arrogant, and vilify those who do not think like them.

    • texas57

      He’s an educated hick though

    • RLC

      What is a hick?

    • Andy Z

      These Liberals were never for tolerance they have just been emboldened in the last couple of decades to show their true colors

  • Bobbala

    What’s a little thing like extinction compared to the very rewarding careers modern women enjoy … and it helps us get more and more like Africa!

  • urbanvrwcmom

    Human traffickers don’t go after younger girls in order to control them? Never mind, sex traffickers are often leftists; no harm, no foul.

  • Janice Foster

    Robertson you need to quit saying things that offend other people and let us stand behind you in prayer until these storms pass over!

    • Steve

      The storm will never stop. Tell the haters to piss up a rope. Unless we are silenced they will never be happy

    • http://www.norad.mil/ Dr_Falken

      …except he said it in 2009. You would need a DeLorean to keep him from having said that in 2009. Remember, it only works at 88MPH, and only if you drive it at a wall.

      • Andy Z

        Late 50’s Rural Louisiana? that was more the rule than the exception at least the Rednecks got married not like the welfare recipients of the big cities

    • master of sinanju

      Good thing our Lord and Savior didn’t have you as an adviser! Remember, those lost in sin will try to tear Godly men down, case in point, Mr. Robertson.

    • perry

      this was said serveral years ago,you can find it on utube.people got married young back years ago ,people only lived to be about 55.girls were alot mature back then they could do what there moms did most had helped raise the smaller kids anyway folks had alot of kids back then both my grand and greatgrand parents had 10 and 12 kids

    • ezekiel22

      Not to worry. GLADD and company will keep digging and or make things up in order to get Phil. Truth does not matter to these people.

  • Rey G

    Well when you stop to think about it, society today is laced with lots of rebellious women and the public schools are contributing the majority of this rebellion so the by the time girls want to get married they’ve already lost all respect for the opposite sex and pretty much useless for a long term marriage .Most of them can’t do any house work, they can’t cook or even keep their home area clean because they’ve had so much “homework” from school that took up all of their time at home, they couldn’t learn anything from their mom. This is being passed down from generation to generation so marrying them early as a teenager may help in many ways if that guy is willing to learn and teach with lots of patience.

    • Alleged Comment

      This has been going on for decades, way back to the early 1900’s. It’s not a modern phenomena at all.

      Granted, it has gotten worse and exacerbated by liberal philosophy of, FIRST DO HARM!

      I think it was the 60’s that things started to go downhill. Sex, drugs and rock-n-roll, do your own thing counters-culture crap kind of thing.

      The result has been the Clintons and negro worship

      “Barry Staylolo, YEP!” – Ali Blah Blah

  • Rooster

    Nothing wrong with Phil stating his opinion! People are still trying to make something out of nothing. Some people would have everyone so far left they could never make a right. Look at your own house before you dare criticize others, especially Christians.

    • Johnny

      If this media reporter knew any thing at all of the South – he would know that the practice of marrying at the age of 15 or 16 has been practice for many decades. Also, did this reporter look into how many of these young women get married before getting pregnant or the ratio of abortions? Chances are they are married and then decide to have children. Then take a look at the rest of the population and compare, I dare you.

      • http://www.norad.mil/ Dr_Falken

        Don’t get *married* at 15! but it’s perfectly OK to pop out a couple kids by then, as long as they are dependent on the state (making the mother even more dependent on the state). Or, don’t have the kid at all! Sacrifice another baby to Moloch — Moloch wants a certain segment of the population to keep up their 500,000 people per year willful slaughter of their own race. But at least they’re not getting *married!*. This only makes sense to Democrats. Or Moloch. But I repeat myself.

      • Andy Z

        Most of them are still married to the same man 50 years later

  • Rebalee

    OMG what a radical perverted idea getting married at 15………. But is okay for them to have sex education about alternative lifestyles, free birth control, free abortion and or start a life as a baby momma for a half dozen baby daddies and live the rest of their lives on welfare.

  • Charles Giles

    This is all opinionated and has nothing to do with the WORD of God’s
    direction for our lives, THIS IS THE POINT

  • MikeS

    Who cares?! Good for Phil. Duck Dynasty is still a great show full of family values.

  • bluealiendevil

    Not many women will pluck a duck’s feathers, but many young girls will to please the boy. Go ask your teen daughter what she would do, or better yet listen to them. He is telling young boys to find a girl who will pull duck feathers, carry a Bible and attend church. What is wrong with that? He has raised four fine young men, they go to church, they married yuppie girls who he does love, he has beautiful grandchildren, they eat meals together and pray at the table. How many of you who criticize him have what he has, your family does what his does together? Do they come to eat at your table? Do they come to your defense? Do they treat you with respect or tell you to go %*# yourself? Cause his children would not dare. Phil Robertson is a very lucky man has has been blessed many times over.

    • colsooonscoorner

      My Grand Daughter’d probably smack him in the chops with it. She’s 16 and very independent. Careful what you say or ask. LOL

      Phil did look a little younger there Wonder if he still thinks the same.

      We wouldn’t have allowed our daughter get married that young. And I think her response would have been the same as my Grand Daughters.

      • Alleged Comment

        Your granddaughter needs to get married quick before she is 17 and can’t be changed!

  • F-14 Navy Vet

    FLASH! AUTO-Biography written by president admits he violated US federal law, bought and used illegal drugs and was an underage alcohol drinker. (Headline that the Obama-compliant press avoided at all costs – because BO is a liberal.) What Phil said may be eye-opening for many Americans, it is not an illegal act in many states in the USA with the parents and bride’s consent. However, what BO states he did in his past was and still is a violation of US law. Yet we will hear nothing from the liberal, biased press against their ‘great’ leader.

    • http://www.norad.mil/ Dr_Falken

      I heard his autobiography was ghost-written.

      • GuyInAGorillaSuit

        I heard it was written by a spook.

      • F-14 Navy Vet

        Likely (as it was written in Bill Ayers style). But regardless, BO must think highly of himself to write not one, but 2 auto-biographies when his greatest claim to fame at the time was being a community organizer….

        • http://www.norad.mil/ Dr_Falken

          Funny, that. Campaign finance law says that any donations made to an election/reelection campaign have to be marked as to who it was that made the donations. However, if someone decides to buy 10,000 copies of an “autobiography”, that doesn’t have to be claimed under campaign finance law.

          I’m sure this is a complete coincidence, though.

  • F-14 Navy Vet

    Suddenly Libs horrified to hear about teen marriage – while they themselves push sex ed & “My Two Dads” in grade school, encourage kids to taste flavored condoms on cucumbers in junior high, and field trips to strip clubs as college credit? The mind of a liberal must be a silly place…

    • texas57

      GREATNESS

    • Alleged Comment

      The Kinsey Report has been proven to be a total fraud. The man made up almost everything in it.

      He seemed to be a psychopath sexual predator, yet educated people took his book as Bible for their cause of PREDATOR FREE SEX as your picture above indicates.

      They finally had the WORST book on sex they were looking for!

      “A fiend in need is a friend indeed” – Ali Blah Blah

    • UnCL3

      Ah, yes! The Grumman Tomcat!
      One of my personal favorites…

  • V8RX

    I don’t see anything wrong with what he is saying. Just because people today think differently. People use to get married at 13. I wouldn’t do it,But in the time it was okay. Society has changed the way they think and now a days yhey would call you a perv. and you’d be arrested and jailed. But if you think about it,People got married young and stayed together. ..NO DIVORCE!! Marriages lasting 40-50+ yrs!!! NOT THESE DAYS…..YOU LAST A YEAR AND YOUR DOING GOOD!!!

  • petraone

    OMG! People,he was obviously joking around here! Anyone with a functioning brain(this leaves out most ‘progressive,left-sided liberals)can see that he was joking here.Notice how the clip cuts off right after he said that. I wonder what he said just after that? Probably something that the lib-tards didn’t want anyone to see. Why would they do such a thing,could it be possible that they have an agenda? Time to grow up folks and use the brain that God gave you and know that this man wasn’t seriously advocating under age marriage. Get real for crying out loud!

    • sootsme

      Actually, the rest of the comment was to the effect that at 20 or so,” they’ll pick your pocket.” And like most humor, there may be a grain of truth in there somewhere…

  • EastonTexas

    The reality is that many of us would not be on this earth today had the age of consent to marry had been 18 way back 100 years ago.

  • Jacobb Chapman

    My great-grandma married my great-grandma when she was 16 and he was 35. Times were just different back then. I believe they got married in the early 1940’s.

  • agbjr

    “If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering.”

    Daniel Webster

  • Ballistic45

    Hypocrites, couldn’t make their homophobic/Racist mud slinging stick to Phil so now gangs of Liberal “Gotcha Police” are digging for anything they can find on Phil.. Sounds like the Smear Campaign done on Sara Palin.. The Hypocrisy comes from attacking Phil for an obvious comedic moment while supporting their Muslim friends who truly do marry and fornicate with VERY young girls and who Completely Control women both inside marriage and even single women around them… Where is their liberal condemnation of it? Liberals pick and chose who, what and when things “Offend” them based on the political gains they can garner.. And they certainly take into account the danger to themselves personally, it is far safer to attack the “turn the other cheek” crowd with their “Politically Correct Play Book” than to attack those who have a track record of responding with violence to attempts to change their beliefs.. Yeah, they know it would be stupid to bring their “Politically Correct Play Book” to a gun fight…. So we have Liberal Lemming attacking Christians repeatedly while giving Islam a pass on everything they believe… Hypocrites all….

  • LittleMoose

    These Progressives just won’t give up. It’s not alright to marry at 15-16 but it is alright to have sex at that age and they will provide the condoms.

  • http://yahoo.com/ peter kirk

    the gay’s marry their own at 3yrs old and up.

  • Carol

    Alright, wheres the video footage of him saying this? And even if he did…..he has every right to say it. You dont have to listen….but he has the right to say it. Unlike the other government fair haired children and groups who sue people if they offend them in word. Hypocritical idiots.

    • Alleged Comment

      Conservatives say it, but liberals practice it always illegally.

  • OldNorthState

    “Unpleasant video footage…”??? This is purely a hit job on the Robersons, regardless of the original source (Daily Mail UK? – uh, yeah, they’re real “up” on Southern American rural-style humor… I’d rely on their take, for sure….).

    You should be more careful who’s stuff you disseminate. “More Controversy…” my arse – the man was entertaining and witnessing to a bunch of good fellows who DID “get it”, unlike some sensationalistic limey lefty feature article writer…

  • agbjr

    Reminder for liberals …

    Stanley Ann Dunham was 18 (b1942) and Barrack Obama Sr. 27 (b1934) when they married. At the time she was three-months pregnant with Barrack, Jr. He abandoned her less than four years later and made no effort to remain in his son’s life.

    Kay Robertson was 16 when she married Phil … she was not pregnant out-of-wedlock. Fifty years later they have four sons, many grandchildren, are self-made millionaires, and remain devoted to each other. God is Good. Happy. Happy. Happy.

    • ONTIME

      I just don’t understand how those facts manage to get in the way of a good lib rant….LOL

      • RLC

        Simply because they’re facts.

  • cwms2005

    This was the way it was for thousands of years and is still the way in many countries. Controversial? Not a bit. Unless you are a progressive live with them get them pregnant and then leave sort of person.

  • john

    ….the apostle paul said, “it is better to marry, than to burn in lust…..unlike islam, where old men marry children, at the age of 9 and up…………….

  • ONTIME

    Looks like Phil didn’t even follow his own advice she 18 and him 20, 47 years of a prosperous and fulfilling marriage….she wasn’t promised to him at birth and he wasn’t 27 and her 9 when they married…I see nothing wrong with these folks and Best to them for the New Year…We could use more sanity.

  • 4grands

    So what?

  • Douglas Morris

    homophobic? really? no slant there is there? My father was 21 and Mother was 16…1941. was fairly common in researching family history, women marrying at 15 and up…and LEGAL in most states today. Hell one or two is 14..

    • perry

      these people that pick on Phil are hetrophobic

    • 48TENN

      My father-in -law married his wife, after 3 dates, when she was 15. Then he shipped out for the ETO in WWII. They remained together for 69 years, until her death.

  • Andy Z

    I think he was only a year or so older than Miss Kay

  • Dianna Zerbe

    why do people keep picking apart what he says? don’t they have anything better to do.
    I grew up with all kinds customs. marrying young was one of them. that is just a fact. a way of life.

  • nordel

    My grandmother was 14 when she married in Cuba in the 1800’s. They were married until he died

  • mike in cancan

    Do you know why there is that toe space under your kitchen cabinets? It there so your pregnant wife can get closer to the sink.

    • RLC

      You meant to include that she’s barefoot too, right?

  • coconuisse

    Well now, if only the media had looked into the history of our current president as they were supposed to do before he was “elected” with the fervor that they are digging into the past of Mr. Robinson we probably would have rejected our Chicago crook Occupier-in-Chief without a second thought, eh? Too bad that Mr. Robinson is not a buttoned-down liberal hack like his media researchers are, then they would have gotten a lot more free time NOT investigating him to the same extent that they didn’t investigate Obama, right?

  • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

    I see the perverts are looking for anything to use against Phil….after all, tolerance is their motto.

    People early in this century married young….so what? Times change; unfortunately so did the definition of marriage and common sense.

    If a comic on Saturday Night Live (and expect one to do so this weekend), stood up and made the same comments, it would get zero press.

    Someone should sit Phil Robertson down, (TV’s loser Dr. Phil comes to mind), and quiz him as to why his marriage and life are so successful. I’ll bet Phil never spent a dime on psychological therapy.

    • fliteking

      “I see the perverts are looking for anything to use against Phil….after all, tolerance is their motto.”

      Bloody Genius! I’m calling this the best closing comment of 2013 ! Nice job NASA.

      On a side note – – – -it is liberals that push for the elimination of “age of consent” , declare pedo.philia a “genetic issue” & argue to allow minors to get abortions without parental notice!

      Fun fact – NY, the second most liberal state in the nation, allows 14 year old teens to get married . . . . sad, ain’t it?

  • Susan

    Reason for NSA—beware people—the Marxists who control our “free” Press and all “perceptions” of the useful idiots—can destroy anyone with a “soundbite” . They have been destroying people who dare state the “Truth” since before Senator McCarthy.

    How evil Satanic Ethics and Marxism/Communism/Progressivism is when they don’t allow the free expression of ideas. SILENCING all opinions which go against their “right to sodomize” is their agenda here. They have to NORMALIZE sodomy and FLIP Good and Evil in the minds of our children so they HAVE to control the ideas that are fed into your little boys—which demands brainwashing and warping the Natural sexual identity of children like they do in Afghanistan….the removal of Truth/God.

    How old was Jesus’s mother, BTW. Ben Carson’s mother was 13 when she was “married”…..so maybe the DD people are onto something….. Look at what happens to “liberal” women who put off having babies—like that vile Gloria Steinem who uses their barren bodies like toilet tissue, and think it is a “Right” from God and leads to “happiness” when they are miserable and defy Natural Laws and Reason—much less God.

    They believe in teaching little children to take Pride in anal sex—they care nothing about 15 year old girls. Homosexuals are sexist and hate women and their natural body—like the Afghanis who put the pretty little boys in harems and cut off the woman’s noses.

  • Sama

    hmmm Let’s see now….how old was Mary when she had Jesus? She was about 15.

    In this day and age when kids haven’t learned how to work and earn their way around…probably not a good idea to get married that young…..

    • francoamerian

      The hypocrite Liberals are all for teaching kids how to screw and make babies that they cannot support. They tell them to go on welfare so they can screw the taxpayers.

  • JimmyMac6778

    Claiming that these words are Phil’s gospel is a real stretch. Like Si’s stories, Phil’s comments on the (loosely scripted) show are an embellishment of his character and
    views.

    You’ve got Lohan, Madonna, the Gaga idiot, Bieber, Sheen, Baldwin, and a platoon of MSNBC vulgar morons taking a daily dump on the air and in print. Leave Phil alone for God’s sake!

  • Trisha

    Give it a rest people. If you don’t agree with Mr. Robertson, WATCH SOMETHING ELSE!!!!!

    • francoamerian

      They won’t give it a rest. They are afraid of the Robertsons as they are afraid and jealous of Sarah Palin. They will keep on digging into that family’s past until they think they have found something that sticks to ruining their reputation.

  • jzandensky

    Im perfectly

  • Co2

    Dig further and maybe he said something as a toddler you can use. And what’s the problem progressives? You sure are silent on the Muslim marriages.

    • francoamerian

      Co2, good point. They won’t dare point out that the Muslims are into incest. As a matter of fact their founder Mohammed was fooling around with a nine year old girls. They can’t hurt the Robertson family because their lives are based on love and honesty. They aren’t perfect, but compared to the lying so called progressive Liberals and Democrats they are damn near perfect.

  • Alleged Comment

    The Bible doesn’t count you as a “citizen” till you’re 20. It counts you as somebody at 13.

    I dunno…

    Maybe eye ‘em at 13 and watch and marry them at 20?

    I dunno….

  • A Z

    I have seen this in action. A college upperclassman date a high school upperclassman and they are off the market. Even before you are out of the starting gates the field has been narrowed unless some in your age group do likewise.

    Not saying there was any hanky panky. Let’s just assume it is all above the board dating. The result is the same.

    The husband is usually 3 years older on average.

  • barb patton

    Oh please!!!!! what is the reason for distracting the lemmings and sheeple appertaining to the Ducks, their dynasty and the oaf who is the head of them all. Lord love a duck and let us rather watch what the buggers in government are up to…

  • sbryant

    Sounds like some kidding to me. Not exactly serious advice.

  • infidel81

    Phil Robertson – the media’s new George Zimmerman.

  • http://originalpechanga.blogspot.com OriginalPechanga

    It’s important to note that in the U.S. 25 states allow marriage under 16 years of age. And the very liberal NORTHERN states of New Hampshire, you can marry at 13 and in New York, 14. It’s not a southern issue apparently. Nice to know that the media will dig up a 4 year old speech from a reality star, but didn’t look into Barack Obama’s background with this intensity.

    • UnCL3

      you got that right!

  • Admiral America

    Now they’re going to break out what appears to be really old footage from the good old days before political correctness, and apply today’s warped PC standards to what is clearly someone joking around.

  • 48TENN

    Sounds to me like Phil was “playing to the audience.” Of course, he could have gone another route — my 88 year-old friend claims that women aren’t worth a damn, until they reach 40. To a male audience, these remarks may seem humorous; to a national audience, not so much. Either way, Phil is definitely in the media crosshairs. Personally, I could care less.

  • awkingsley

    Back when Robertson married girls really were supposed to be able to cook. We all had to take Home Making Classes.

    • francoamerian

      Also children grew up very quickly in rural America. They had to in order to help out on farms.

  • Timur

    Liberals and Homos will all now find a reason to silence and destroy him.

  • Birdog

    Some folks just need to get-a-life ! My Grandparents on my Father’s side married when they were 14 & 15, and were married for 60 years or so! It’s hard to find anyone married over 10 years now! Social engineering has done quite a bit in our Great Land; high divorce rate, high abortion rate, high debt rate, need I go on?

    • jubilee

      WOW…what year did they GET MARRIED IN? after WW2, those kind of marriages were harder to last—kids should be at least 18.
      There is a Marriage counselor MARK GUNGOR and his wife got married at 18 he also has a crazy sense of humor..with his MARK GUNGOR SHOW..he is for YOUNG MARRIAGE as well

      • Birdog

        They got married before World War II. And my grandfather was a sharecropper as well. He’s 96 years old now, a son of liberty and my brother in Christ. I love him dearly.

  • Tom K.

    The Corrupt Media will continue to attack Phil Robertson since he is a professed Christian and Lives The Life ! Just ignore those media knuckleheads and their Anti-American / Dem-Lib-Prog-Soc-Comm Message. What if they focused their energy on really checking out Obama or even Hillary Clinton ? Don’t hold your breath.

    • francoamerian

      That’s right Tom K. Look at how they piled on Tim Teabow because he wasn’t afraid or ashamed to profess his belief in God and Christianity. Tim will be okay because there are good people looking out for him.

      • Colleen Phillips

        I’m sure Tebow will be OK, but it looks like he won’t have a career as an NFL quarterback.

  • msVickiFlorida

    Daily Mail can bite me. Just fueling the fire against this man. And you should not throw flames on it either.

  • Christian Gains

    This is the evidence of a smear campaign, well orchestrated and financed…a well thought through one…orchestrated to ‘sting” the sensitivities of the ‘under informed’ Christian “wanna bees”…and believe you me, it’ll work like a charm, as there is an entire BASE GROUP Of pseudo Christian PC artists that’ll jump RIGHT on this band wagon, without second thought, because they ARE SOOOO ignorant of BOTH Scripture, and Jewish & Christian History.

    LONG before Jesus’s birth, Hebrew/Jewish culture and tradition accepted women’s menstral ‘periods’ beginning, as the “sign of God” that a woman was capable of conceiving, and therefore a “woman”, no longer a female child.

    But, ALSO, it was determined that a (what we presently term “fiance'”), must do a “betrothal”…a year long “proving time” [for lack of a better description], where the man had to live in the house of the girl’s ["betrothed"] family for 360 days, (Hebrew year), with NO INTIMATE contact allowed, in order to assure that their personalities and character were acceptable, to the Family, AND to the community.

    Marriage was an EXTREMELY “holy element” in Hebrew culture, as it was obedience to Yahweh’s ORIGINAL COMMANDMENT (both in the Garden, [Gen.1:28] as well as after the flood, [Gen.9:1]), “be fruitful & multiply”.

    So, once again Phil is adhering to BOTH Scripture, AND Jewish Tradition, and, once again, (as we’ll see) he’s run afoul of the PC (demonically inspired) hatred groups who despise God, and ANYTHING Godly….ESPECIALLY the Scriptures!

    Phil is simply the “whipping boy” of the persecution approaching…[check out Egypt, & Syria — the ONLY difference between the “mussies” & GLBT groups is that the Mussies will QUICKLY kill the GLBT groups, once they take over…and the “D.imwit C.ity” cult of self & “Political Correctness” crowd aren’t capable of comprehending that simple difference…And, this is ALL to be expected….

  • Tired of the Same Old Crap

    .
    Lets see it’s OK for the 14-15-16 year old to practice “safe” sex perform oral sex and other “progressive” deviances but it is wrong for her to get married and begin a family, Boy these idiots are really perverts aren’t they?.
    .
    What else can you expect when the DNC proudly touts a college students that claims that she spends $3000 a year on birth control to support her sex life and wants you to pay for it. and another proudly displays a female who wears a badge/button that proclaims “CUNTS VOTE” .
    .
    The democrat party has become the party of depravity.
    .

    • Timur

      Very well put.

    • msVickiFlorida

      damned good points……..thank you very much

    • jubilee

      BIRTH CONTROL doesn’t cost 3000 dollars a year, UNLESS SHE MEANS ABORTIONS (which some women use as birth control) I would NEVER TRUST her as a LAWYER…besides,.condoms are cheap although don’t work many times

      • Carrie

        Hormonal birth control does in fact cost that much, and abortions are anywhere from only $250-$500, depending on which state you’re in. She’s still an idiot for not choosing a method within her OWN budget of course, just like everyone else has to do. I don’t pay for things like fancy name brands when they’re out of my financial range. Neither should she!

        • leannimal88

          You are absolutely correct on that one! I agree that neither you nor Ms. Fluke should reproduce.

          • gotitaIl

            Remember to lead the way BY EXAMPLE first, not by words. Words are as useless as the vomit that comes from the same orifice the words did.

    • francoamerian

      They are fuc*en hypocrites. They are just pissed over the fact that A&E had to eat sheet and take him back. Haa Haa! Screw any straight, gay, lesbian or any othe class of people who are trying to take down the Duck Dynasty. I am not a fan of the show, but I know basically decent people when I see them. Are his critics free from sin or mistakes in life? I would bet my life that some of his worst critics have done worse things then he has in their life.

  • pnpeterman

    Did Phil marry a 15 year old? No???? Good enough for me to see through this piece of “four letter word” so called lip dubbed video.

  • infidel81

    Humor is sometimes lost on the humorless.

  • worldwatchman

    There’s more to this story. I’m pretty sure he was making jokes within whatever he was talking about. I don’t feel bad at all. This would be something the left would take and run with it.

    • jubilee

      YES THERE WAS MORE… Miss Kay was over 18 when she married him….OTOH, those who are 14-16 are having sex and making babies or having random oral sex, so, in a way, he is right. I’ve even heard that young marriages are sometimes better for the girl AND the boy, so they could GROW TOGETHER-and not be ‘set in their ways’ by the time they DO get married

      • Brad

        Miss Kay was 16 when they married. They have said so many times on the show.

        • francoamerian

          So effen what if she was sixteen? Is that any worse then giving sex education to elementary school kids when they shouldn’t be encouraged to be having sex at twelve years old or younger?

          • scot sims

            Sex ed is a preventative. Children today have sex at 12 & younger. Since very few children only hear “just say no” at home it actually cuts teen pregnancy.

            So you encourage what amounts to child rape.

    • Carrie

      Ummm, he *is* talking about banging children. Most states consider that child molestation still. But guess what, NAMBLA and other “child-love pride” organizations fully agree with Phil on this one.

      • scot sims

        So then it’s OK?

      • worldwatchman

        Bite me bitch. As I said the “Left” will take this and run. YOU being one of the Left. It was taken out of the whole structure of what he was saying. LOOK into the WHOLE story THEN comment. You people get me in between my buttocks.

        • Carrie

          My husband and I love that show, “Lockup”, about foul-mouthed criminals who get at least some of what they deserve. We routinely hear your first line “bite me, b!tch) and your last line (get me in between my buttocks) as gay prison come ons. It saddens me that your prison allows you to even use a computer, let alone use your gay pickup lines at a married woman.

          I am not on the left, I’m not even left-of-center. I just find child molestation atrocious, the same with homosexual prison taunts like yours. If you would pull out of whomever you are no doubt firmly parked in, you would realize that my low opinion of gay-talk and under-aged sex puts me firmly and very comfortably on the right.

          I won’t wish AIDS upon you, mostly because if that’s God’s plan, it will be His plan regardless. But please keep your dirty prison talk where it belongs: in prison.

      • leannimal88

        Go talk to your Muslim friends about “banging children” (crude comment). You are disgusting.

        • Carrie

          Does the Daily Kos pay you per fabricated insult? I cannot think of another reason why someone would waste his or her time coming up with several purely made-up, ludicrous lies to suggest about a total stranger, other than some liberal website paying you to do so.

          :Phil Robertson is the closest thing I’d have to a “Muslim friend”, since he is in favor of child molestation.
          :Neither I nor my husband nor our adopted children live in any “hood”, in fact we don’t even use such low classed slang.
          :We opted to adopt, rather than give birth to any children while there are tens of thousands of desperate children already languishing without parents or stable home lives.

          :We don’t qualify for welfare “grants” or any other welfare, as our two businesses combined put us in the top tax bracket.

          Please, does your conscience ever get to you, taking money to fabricate wholly untrue insults against people whose taxes no doubt exceed your entire income? I make that judgment based on your “hood” comment and your willingness to accept $ to malign good, Christian households who are anti-child abuse.

  • scot sims

    Lot of people making excuses for Phil here. He started dating his wife when she was 14 years old. He was 18. Doesn’t seem right.

    • Jay Star

      Oh it’s ok with parental supervision, and based on the girls maturity, it can work out even with marriage later. You take a chance at any age….

      • scot sims

        it’s not OK anytime.

      • angrywhiteman

        this was extremely common in phils day.

  • eyeball

    Way to go, Phil. The idiots who eschew love for fornication don’t — and WON”T — get it. And when they’re in their, oh, fifties, they’ll wonder why they’re single and depressed all the time. As the saying goes, “If you’re 20 and not liberal, you have no heart; but when you’re 40 and not conservative, you have no brain.” May God continue to bless you and yours, Phil.

  • Pete Perez-Donnelly

    *Bar Mitzvahs are a Religious recognition, of 13 years of age, being the beginning of adulthood. Since most people graduate from H.S. at the age of 18. Our Government made 18 as the beginning of adulthood. Most people reach puberty at age of 11 and
    girls can get pregnant at that age. In some U.S.States and Latin America, you can get married at the age of 15 and be considered an adult after marrying.

    • Carrie

      In the Middle East if you’re Muslim, it’s even a little younger! A nine year old “bride” recently died from wedding night injuries.

      Phil Robertson is a grotesque old hack, but he is allowed to hold his Muslim/Christian beliefs until the day he dies, or as long as he’s still an American. He should not be boycotted because of religious beliefs.

      • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94rcOVJBMYQ Winston Blake

        Judaic Bolshevist Mammonism (Baphomet) is just as much of a devil as Mahomet… Saint Sodom Hussein Obama put on a yarmulke and prayed at the Wailing Wall, no Muslim would do this Miley Cyrus dry humping of demons like the Jews do.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94rcOVJBMYQ

      • Tim Rowland

        Quincenearas and Sweet Sixteen celebrations were presentations of young women as eligible to court for marriage. Most cultures around the world have carried traditions of early marriage for both sexes.

        That said, Phil Robertson has joked like this repeatedly in the past, as he does on the reality show. Feel free to unwind your knickers and remove the stick from your posterior. It’s a schtick, not a mandate from God.

        • Carrie

          I assure you there are no sticks in my posterior, and perhaps you would do well to stop fantasizing about strangers’ knickers and posteriors, let alone instructing said strangers what to do with their own private underwear.

          Now please do explain how quinceñaeras and sweet sixteen celebrations have a darned thing to do with what I wrote? You’re somehow in approval of the nine year-old child bride who was raped to death on her wedding night because of teenagers’ fancy bashes? Also, try very hard to remain on topic, not bringing into the discussion body parts or underwear… there are other sites to discuss those topics.

          • Tim Rowland

            No your equating Phil Robertson’s comments with the 9-year old child who was murdered by rape is patently offensive. The fact that you cannot connect those dots either shows your lack of mental clarity or a determined disingenuousness.

            My comment on quincenearas and sweet sixteens speaks directly to what Phil said, which is what this thread is about. Your comment about 9-year-olds being murdered is a false association.

            Further, your misunderstanding of common idioms makes me wonder how socially integrated you are…. are you confined to some sort of facility or ward for mental patients?

          • OIdchopper

            It took you this long to come up with that little? Honest bro, if you didn’t know how to pull yourself out of that hole then you shoulda just stopped digging.

          • Tim Rowland

            Ya, some of us are employed so we don’t live here….

          • OIdchopper

            The embarrassing lack of substance for your position was the bigger issue, not how long it took you to come up with the pathetic excuses. And don’t knock retired people. I probably been retired longer than you’ve been alive, kiddo.

  • francoamerian

    You can be sure that any so called skeletons in Phil’s closet will be dug up now and paraded to the public to show what a bad person he is. These friggen Liberals make me sick. They are a bunch of hypocrites.

    • Jay Star

      Yes, and the Liberals are so freaking perfect, aren’t they? I just dont know how we survived without their do’s and dont’s. Oh the shame of it! NOT!

  • dave

    Video stopped to soon. Where’s the rest that tells us like it is?

  • Oldchopper

    I’m not sure many boys are mature at 20 and many of the girls are far from carrying Bibles. It’s something that can be fixed by responsible adult parents but then there’s not many of those running around these days either.

  • francoamerian

    This video is BS. It is nothing but sound bite that the Liberals want to represent what the Robertsons stand for. It is a bunch of BS just like most of the Democrats philosophy.

  • mwbiolchino

    This is news?, load of crap once more from the brain dead left

  • Jay Star

    Here we go again, come on, get your feathers ruffled over nothing. Hey but listen, transgender bathrooms are A-OK.And Homosexual love is so cool to teach your children about! So dont yank our chain on what Phil Robertson said or did not say, ok?

  • IvyDevilDog

    Ahhh…so the delegitimization of Phil begins simply because he chose to spread God’s word.

    2 Timothy 3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

  • oldironsides

    I was somewhat shocked to learn after moving to Kentucky in 1991 that the legal age for a girl to marry was 12. A few years later after some public criticism the legislature raised the minimum age to 15.

    • Sir2You

      You will also be rather shocked to know that the virgin Mary was only 14 wh

    • Sir2You

      when she had Jesus. Most people died before the current age to give birth.

  • Nel

    Hey my great grandma was 15. That used to be normal in the old days Also there was nothing “homophobic” about his remarks.

  • NObama2012

    Yo Giles, just as soon as you write a few columns admonishing Muslims about the same practices, THEN you can do the same about Phil, okay?

  • Dwightmannn

    In the old days women would have between 10-20 children. That is why they have to start as young as possible. It is gods design, argue with him. . .

    • Carrie

      That wasn’t God’s design. Women used to have to have that many babies because half (or more) babies would die before the age of five! Don’t blame lack of advanced medical care back in the “old days” on God!

      Also, until only recently in history, women died well before reaching menopause; not so anymore. Not so by a long shot. In fact, women are hitting menopause at later and later ages…

      • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94rcOVJBMYQ Winston Blake

        Marine Le Pen faced prosecution for criticizing Islam, in France of all places, in context with existing French laws. And, in true Vichy fashion, they raised the white flag with Iran just like Monsieur Kerry.

        If anyone is anti-woman, it is the gay leftist L’Internationale… and they infest the education bureaucracy like AIDS.

        All men are born of a woman.

        (Whores are superior creatures… they can bathe and are exactly what they were before, men are changed forever. Anything that survives bleeding for four days is most formidable.)

  • Memphis Viking

    I’m kinda disappointed in ClashDaily for printing this hit piece on Phil Robertson.

    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94rcOVJBMYQ Winston Blake

      Phil Robertson looks like Michelangelo’s “Moses.”

    • Iorgos

      I’m sure they’re just pointing out the whacko attack and not agreeing with it, although I agree they don’t make their position clear. They certainly don’t agree with their calling Robertson homophobic.

    • Tim Rowland

      It WAS tongue-in-cheek. This is not news. He jokes like this all the time even on the reality show. I can’t believe Clash would actually print this as disappointing. I’m disappointed in the Clash Daily.

    • Tim Rowland

      It WAS tongue-in-cheek. He jokes like this on the reality show as well. I am disappointed in Clash for posting this as ‘controversial’ and ‘unpleasant’.

  • anAmericanByChoice

    When the times were tough things were different. Older kids in the family, often older meaning just 14 years old, would be in charge of working and sustaining a family, as father and mother had passed away, or mother was left alone, and they became the man of the house. A 15 or 16 yo young man (and there’s a reason why we call them young men and young women and not kids!) would fancy a girl, and start talking abut marrying that early! He would go out, pick up a spot, and spend the whole of Spring and Summer building his heart’s chosen and wife to be a home, a cabin in the woods, modest it would be. There was a sense of God given responsibility, devotion and a “I’ll prove you I can care for you and our kids to come” principle that today’s sense of entitlement and socialistic societies we have allowed to close on us has robbed us all of, and, most of all, our younger generations. Hard work built character and seeing Mother and Father work hard and take their roles as parents seriously taught children that THAT was the way to grow up… So, must women, most men, aged 14, 15, 16 were more mature than many 20, 30 even 40 yos these days. My Grandmother had 11 kids. She was a physically frail woman, but dang!, was she strong willed and at the same time the gentler creature Gd ever put on this world! There is nothing wrong with young men manning up and young women becoming wife and mother at a younger age! For one thing, it would avoid a lot of licentious behavior and sexual irresponsibility. The “teenage” years are a liberal, stupid invention of our modern, decrepit societies, to keep young men and young women in a vacuum and creating a hoard of emotionally and physically unstable meat for the grinder population that feeds the establishment (schools for retards and dumbcrats, prisons for $$$, social welfare services of all kinds, etc., etc., etc.,) rather then letting them live up to their God given gifts and capabilities! I got my first gun when I was 8, and I was responsible with it always! My parents always taught that there was NO EXCUSE for disrespecting another person; that a boy should not touch a girl unless he was married to her and meant to live with her for the rest of his life!, and on and on it goes. Teenage years do not exist: children mature and progressively takes the responsibilities their able to endure work, experience, able to procreate bodies allow them to. It all boils down to RESPONSIBILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY, and what young man or young woman does not want to live up to their full potential, if brought up by goodly parents as God loving people? None I dare say!

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94rcOVJBMYQ Winston Blake

    Why not polyandry or polygyny?

    All men are born of a woman.

    Homosexuals desire their own extinction and the Muslim animals are more than willing to give it them… I simply have no cause to interfere in the conflict between these devils.

    The Synagogue of Sodomy and Church of the Stinky Donut Hole will not tolerate blasphemy of their religious fággotry. They must think they will have fun playing “spread the other cheek” in gay marriages with their new Islamic masters.

    The Koran permits a man to have as many as four wives, but Saint Sodom Hussein Obama put on a yarmulke and prayed at the Wailing Wall… no Muslim would do this Miley Cyrus dry humping of demons.

    Millions protested gay marriage, but François Hollande’s French government did it anyway… Hollande is a Sodom Hussein Obama sycophant… Ayatollah Khomeini rose to power from the sewers of Paris.

    Marine Le Pen faced prosecution for criticizing Islam (in France of all places) in context with existing French laws. And, in true Vichy fashion, they raised the white flag with Iran just like Monsieur Kerry.

    If anyone is anti-woman, it is the gay leftist L’Internationale… and they infest the education bureaucracy like AIDS.

  • magnum 747

    What did He say that was wrong?

  • sadnana

    Teenage girls are easier to control? l had to laugh at that one, as I had the privilege of raising a daughter. As for the whole cooking thing there’s an old saying about men and their stomachs. That Phil or any man would be led by their appetites says more about them than the women they marry. I have a strong feeling that Mrs. Phil enjoys a chuckle or two when she listens to these talks.

  • Willi Wonka

    For those of you who think this is hideous, a girl marrying at 14, let me remind you of what awaits girls in the US after the economic meltdown of the dollar losing it’s default currency status.
    If anyone wonders why this is accepted in the Muslim world, try to imagine not giving a rats asss about such things when thousands are being raped and murdered or starved out by their own countrymen. This is what awaits us here. When you are willing, or had to murder someone just to bring home something to eat, girls marrying at 14 will be the last problem anyone will notice.

  • larrygrant876

    Well just 17 hours into the New Year and so far it looks like B.S as usual. I hope everyone appreciated last year because each year we descend a little further into the psychosis of liberalism and communism and I see nothing to hold out hope on. We are just keeping time now while we wait for Jesus Christ’s appearing, all else is hopeless.

  • Glen Saunders

    BS People get real. This is Hollywood. America needs real people to follow noy something out of someone’s imagination…..

The latest from ClashDaily.com