*“You got to marry these girls when they are about 15 or 16. They’ll pick your ducks,” the New York Daily News quoted the country millionaire saying at a Sportsmen’s Ministry retreat in Georgia four years ago.*Story at IB Times
When Did 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson Say Men Should Marry Girls At 16 So They 'Pick Your Ducks?'
Now, he seemed in the video that he might be searching for a laugh, which the audience provided when he made the comments. But either way –– what I find a spectacle is the number of vocalizers of anti-Christian sentiment in comboxes and such who call him pedophile and disparage him while, if they are true to other contra-Christian causes, probably champion the idea of handing out condoms to high schoolers even younger than that.
all i know is the man took on the new social norm of Homosexuality, called it what it is- a sin, and won.
He won by standing his ground. We all need to take notice.
Yeeeah, but I think they all know that it’s not a good idea to marry at 15 these days. That necessarily means that it’s not a good idea to have sex at 15, but the current culture has separated sex from marriage until they seem like they’re not even related to each other.
I think I’ll just side against everybody in this situation. It’s a bad, bad idea to get married at 15, at least in our current culture.
I think you’re drawing the wrong conclusion. The TV show is making A&E (and the Robertson family) a lot of money, and they wanted to keep the money flowing. My hunch is they all like the extra publicity they have received. However, from a popularity standpoint, the show has likely reached it’s apex.
Do some research on the Duck Dynasty clan and you learn some things. 1)They are your run-of-the mill beachouse millionaires with homes all over the country. 2)They grew beards and became more country just so dupes all over the USA would watch them. 3)While their Christianity may be sincere, it also makes any logical opposition to homosexuality and secularism a caricature- as in “only hicks believe this stuff”.
Most people didn’t pay attention to his words in GQ, they just made this equation: rednecks = bigots. And by the way, why do an interview with GQ if you’re such a good Christian? You know darned well they’re going to try and trap you.
Why? $$$$$$$$ That’s why. The media writes the narrative. Duck Dynasty = anti gay bigots, while Pope Francis = gay advocate. Neither is true, but that is irrelevant. You flirt with the devil, you’re going to get burned.
How can I be drawing the wrong conclusion?
The man said the truth about homosexual acts, the thought and speech police drew there knives and pressured A and E to suspend him, the family stood together and made it clear that the show would end if that happened, then A&E choose to unsuspend him and ignore the thought and speech police. That’s profound in the current political/social climate.
I’m sorry but this is the first time in a long time that free speech for Christians won the day. And I could care less if A&E caved for dollar signs. you know what that tells me?
If we (Christians) refused to support the outlets that promote the culture of death, and stand up to the speech and thought police then they lose, and lose big. And we might just get our culture back.
My point is that A&E’s actions were economically driven. If Duck Dynasty drew poor ratings, the outcome would have been vastly different. Money ruled the day. Not ideology.
I don’t see why any of that should make Phil Robertson immune from criticism. If he’s seriously suggesting that young women should get married at sixteen, then people should call him out on it. And if he’s joking, then it’s not funny.
You do realize then girls used to get married at age 15 and 16 all the time, right?
And not that long ago.
He did say to get parents permission.
And the money bowed to the ideology apparently
Frankly I see no grip with this man. If you go looking for crude, raw, southern and red-neck, then it should be no surprise when you find it.
Its a proverbial line drawing game which in effect states we will laugh and listen to your southern ways and your biblical understanding all the way till we disagree with what you say one day. And then we will search everything you stated which we previously accepted in ignorance and use all of it against you to destroy you.
In other words the joke was no longer funny, ah, but who had the last laugh? :shrug:
His wife Kay was 16 when she married Phil. His comment was in fact, humorous, as it was referring to his own situation. He loves his wife and he is glad that they married, and married when then did.
And it’s not like he was saying anything that was even contrary to Church teaching
Can. 1083 §1. A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage.
A marriage of a sixteen year old were certainly be valid in the eyes of the Church ( heck Mary herself was married at 14)
I’m aware of that. I didn’t say it was sinful or invalid, I said it was a bad idea in our current culture. Which it is. If I understand correctly, he’s basically saying that you should marry someone before they have skills other than homemaking, so that their only interest will be taking care of you and relatively unskilled labor like plucking the feathers off of ducks, instead of pursuing their own dreams and ambitions.
If he’s serious, it’s a bad idea now, and if he’s joking, the comment is distasteful.
I don’t mean to disrespect him or his wife; the median marriage age was much lower when she was sixteen. However, times have changed, and getting married in high school (or dropping out of high school to be a full-time homemaker) is now a really bad idea.
And what? The point I made is clear.
I am curious about your comment that you “could care less if A&E caved for dollar signs.” This indicates that you realize that A&E’s decision was based on economics. So you’ve validated the point I made.
Marriage is consensual. If a woman sees it as her vocation to stay at home and raise children, what exactly is wrong with that.
And if Phil Robertson expresses an opinion (based on his own personal experience) that being married to such a woman is a great experience that he wishes for all, what exactly is the problem?
Of course he’s allowed to express his opinion. That’s what free speech means. It also means that other people can call him out on it. I stand by my assertion that dropping out of high school is almost always a bad idea.
I think it is extremely unwise in our current culture for a 16-year-old girl with no marketable skills to get married and devote her life to taking care of children, before she’s even a legal adult herself. If she’s younger than 16, she won’t even be able to drive. She’ll be completely dependent on her husband, and she won’t be able to get a job elsewhere if she doesn’t have a high school diploma or GED. If her husband becomes the head of a multi-million-dollar company, she’ll be fine. But if anything happens- sickness, disability, or death of the husband- she won’t have many options at all. She’s stuck, with no way to provide for herself or her children.
Now, if a somewhat older woman wants to do the same- one who’s finished high school, one who’s been driving, one who has work experience, one who’s dated more than one person, or the same person for months, and really gotten to know them well- I say more power to her. But in our current culture, I don’t think it’s a good idea to encourage teens to close off most of their options. In our current culture, people ought to have basic life skills before they get married.
Once again, I’m not saying it can’t work, or that it didn’t work in the past. I’m saying that it is now generally unwise.
In this day and age, how many parents are going to be okay with someone asking for their 16 year old daughter’s hand in marriage, especially if the person who wants to marry their daughter believes that a woman’s place is in the home plucking feathers off a duck? Perhaps people tune in to watch Phil Robertson because they’re shocked that someone actually still holds those viewpoints?
Yes, they made the decision based on economics. They also made the decision to suspend him based on economics due to threats of a boycott from GLAD. These are the tactics the left uses to shove their agenda down our throats. This time we shruck back and won. We need to realize that if we make it known that we are not going to support companies that promote the left’s agenda then we will have more victories like this.
The fact that economics are involved is irrelevant.
You like the high divorce rate?
I think what he is saying is if you marry them as a teenager then you have a say in there development. If you wait till they are in there 20’s or 30’s they are already set.
I’m not saying I would do it or allow my daughter to do it. But you can’t argue with the fact that the divorce rate was almost none existent then, and it is outragous now.