In America in 1750 it was 23 for females, and in 1850 24.
Posted on 12/31/2013 8:28:46 PM PST by SeekAndFind
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.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Yea it is different when a girl cannot finish school or concentrate on a possible career path or interest because she has the responsibility of marriage. It is a good thing that there are more choices than women had before. That a woman not a girl matures and is confident before she finds her husband. I think there were plenty of women who were stuck in very bad marriages and stayed not out of love, but fear of being unable to survive without a skill. Not a happy life for anyone in the family.
That’s beautiful. I hope they continue to be happy. But, im sure she wouldn’t want that for her grandchildren.
This discussion is based in Robertsons comments. We are staying on topic. If we were on a muslim child wedding thread, i wouldn’t expect to discuss Robertson.
The ratings for this first quarter of the Duck D. is going to be stratospheric! Tons of people who never gave it a thought now want to know what the heck is all the fuss about?
Forget the indirect justifications. No concessions to the Leftists are required.
Age of consent is a Conservative concern, and certainly not something that should be rationalized in order to preserve other Conservative concerns.
Few people ever make the connection but that is a prime example of leftist racism.
Leftists preach the equality of cultures yet manufacture separate standards. Why? Because they don’t think brown people are very bright, ergo, they can’t be expected to live at the standards enspoused by liberals for themselves. That is the essence of racism.
This is the source of their created underclasses. They need blacks as perennial victims so the knockout game is called a myth/criticzm of Obama is racist.
They need Mexicans to open borders and vote for them so all sorts of laws are bent/broken/ignored to accomodate more Mexicans.
Muslims are the hammer against christianity so pedo BS an any number of human rights abuses are allowed.
But they get paid less in Dem administrations, aborted at higher rates than whites, fed government soma and all the rest. And NEVER treated as equals nor held to equal standards. They are a means to an end. And if that means a lifted skirt or two on an islamic child by a 60 year old man, so be it.
Pure racism. The very real kind.
World history requires no rationalization.
Then by all means, ignore me.
Excluding the sexual scaling of long term human evolution that would have knocked the age of consent downwards a thousand years ago, I think it’s worth, in our era, to backhand an 18 year old that’s sporting a youngling of 14 years.
In America in 1750 it was 23 for females, and in 1850 24.
nothing that Planned Parenthood would not support or report.
Yes, I wish our 1/2 white prez would give up the truth on his personal records. It must be bad if he continually hides the truth. Can’t wait until 2016 or “what difference does it make?”
Perfect. Thx!
Certainly a double standard, certainly hypocrisy, and certainly a waste of time to answer the Left on its charge of youthful impropriety.
Gene, All I can say, and history bears out, is that when ‘young’ man and women married ‘young’ the world had far fewer cases of broken homes, STDs, 27yo ‘children’ better at Skyrim than manual labor and about 10,000 other examples.
Now if you want to say such is wrong, you have about 5000 years of human evolution to dispute.
As to the arguement sure to come as ‘we live in a different society”, yes we do. One that lacks the responsibility that comes with being married young and taking that responsibility through ones life.
Seriously think about what you said. Would you go back and history and kick the ass of your own relatives? Because I assure you, whether you wish to admit it or not, less than 2-3 generations would elapse before you would need to brush up on your boxing chops. And since every person on the planet for the past 5000 years could say the same, you’d better bring the gatoraide besides.
Now I understand your revulsion for the idea of mismatched ages. I do. but history is what it is. America was built by men and women married before their 18th birthday. Period. (And not an Obama period, a real one). That’s just reality.
US stats. About the same:
https://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/marriage/data/acs/ElliottetalPAA2012figs.pdf
One major difference between males and females is that females mature emotionally at least ten years earlier than males.
Geez, Ben, a man’s beard is, well, his beard.
People didn't use to marry so young, you are confusing myth with the reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.