It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Phil Robertson Says Girls Should Be Married Off at “15 or 16”

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   


In today's world where the liberal socialist immoral (1) left advocates condoms and birth control for 13 and 14 year olds, sex is about as prolific as it comes. When I was 13 I wanted to play baseball, go to the movies, and be home for dinner. (2) Today a 13 year old wants to have sex, play some violent video games, and steal something for kicks. (2) There is quite a difference that I have seen as the years zip on by.

Bottom line, the liberal lefties have nothing on Phil because he's not advocating pedophilia, he's saying girls married young would be better than girls having sex every day with every other man in town. They would be married and most probably stay that way, not being welfare candidates.

btw, I didn't read the article so I don't know the whole story. (3)


1. The compound "liberal socialist immoral left" has no actual meaning if any of the following are true*:

Not all liberals are socialists, or
Not all socialists are immoral, or
Not all liberals are immoral, AND
Any leftist is not liberal, socialist or immoral.

*EDIT: The proof here of the original statement boggles the mind.

2. This argument makes gross generalizations about how 13 year olds behave (both in 2013 and 1971) based solely on anecdotal evidence.

3. Making claims regarding an unexamined subject seems more than a bit disingenuous. I think that's called "blowing smoke."
edit on 18Tue, 31 Dec 2013 18:10:54 -060013p0620141266 by Gryphon66 because: corrected stuff.




posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I’m Liberal progressive left, but believe in guns( for self defense) death penalty and no pre-marital sex, so you can’t categorize or pigeonhole people. But I won’t use this just to harm Phil like many on the left now will do just to get back at him, that’s petty.

We have to try to always be fair and honest to each other even though we have acute political differences.

I condemned him for his views, though of course he has the right to them but on this matter it is petty of the left to just pill on stuff like this.

They will be digging in his past for stuff, and just may find more



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Mveins0
reply to post by beezzer
 


That may be the stupidest thing you've ever posted lil rabbit.. in a long history of stupid posts at that. What's a pedophile? Look it up lil buddy.




As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (USA spelling) orpaedophilia (British spelling) is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children (generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnostic criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13).[1][2][3][4] An adolescent who is 16 years of age or older must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia.[1][2]


LINK

Did YOU look it up?

Other posters have already posted the age of consent in popular areas so all it takes is a little less pre notion to avoid posting anything retarded.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by beezzer
 


Sure because acknowledging that teenagers do stupid things too early in life, like have sex and wanting to make sure they don't get pregnant as a result is the same thing as saying you gotta marry girls at 15, before they become adult, independent women that won't put up with your chauvinist BS... is the same thing?


I don't think that is a fair assessment. You claiming that having sex at 15 is "stupid" is based on... what? Politicians? Lobby groups? Some paper back novel you read?

I was active at 13 but that is cause I was a year younger than everyone in my grade. Socially (and this is reality) teens begin being active at 14. The ones that are not I found were the ones with the closest relationship with their parents.

So to me the argument of sex between 14-18 is based only on how long we decided to raise our children and I guess that is determined by the k-12 school system. We can't kick them out till they are done school if we want them to finish without having to join the work force.

I'll be honest, I didn't even read the OP links. This whole duck thing is over my head but hearing people's reactions becoming lectures on morality where they have no domain is a topic I couldn't avoid...



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Onslaught2996
 


I'm ready to start killing these sick sob's, when the opportunity starts presenting itself shortly. Sick bastards like these pollute the species. THEY, as in pedophiles, can't be allowed to propagate. Courts don't have jursidiction. The only court for these pos's is the court of public opinion, as a jury member, execution is my vote.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Phil Robertson has suggested guys marry 15-year-old girls in a newly surfaced video ESPECIALLY if they're related to you.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by beezzer
 


No. You really want to keep worshipping this guy as some kind of stance on freedom of speech? There's better avenues.


Freedom of speech?
The problem is it has nothing to to with freedom of speech. It has everything to do with being tired of getting told what we are supposed to think. I really don't think most on the right agree with Phil. They don't even care. They're just fed up with the PC control insanity.

Every time the media and the left pull this crap, they (and whoever the "victim/s" is or are) lose ground with the general public. People don't care what Phil or anyone else said in GQ. They don't care. It's one persons opinion. They certainly don't clip it out and save it in a scrapbook. It goes right by.

When it's drug out and screamed about, people want Phil's job, people want REVENGE for some comments in a magazine. Most people get irritated and then fed up. Not with the guy who said some backward stuff. They get fed up with the LUNATICS who go absolutely ape over the dumb stuff.

Every time this happens, the American public cares less because it means next to nothing. When something happens that actually does mean something, nobody is going to care because they've seen and heard it a million times and they're fed up.

Just like being called a racist for any weird reason they can find. After the media screams racism for the ten thousandth or so time...it doesn't register any more. It all means less because people who might otherwise care have been beaten over the head with this crap so much and for so long that every time it happens they care even less.

This stuff eventually creates a totally closed mindset in the general public and promotes actual hostility towards special interests because people are FED UP with hearing the never ending offended outrage over every damn thing that gets said by any body.

People are just fed up with all of it.
They used to care.
It's been wrung out of them and they can't care any more when caring requires a thermonuclear freak out every single day that rolls.

Freedom of speech?
How about freedom from speech for a few days.
Maybe we could get a National Don't-say-a-damn-thing-week or something.
I'd support that as a special interest.
I think we could all use the relief.





edit on 31-12-2013 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Frustration with our cultural overuse of "PC" vocabulary is completely understandable. We always seem to overcompensate in our redress of both real as well as imagined wrongs. Surely, there is a point at which it becomes ridiculous if not obnoxious. Granted.

For example, a bit of personal anecdotal testimony ... not too long ago a young fellow less than half my age (I'm 47) piped up at my use in casual conversation of the word "tranny" to describe a TG friend of mine. The TG friend regularly uses the word "tranny" to refer to themselves and has done so for many years. For some reason my word that day just tore him apart and he went ballistic on me in my own office. He was so upset that I asked him to excuse himself for the remainder of the day until he calmed down, and we have subsequently discussed it and the matter is resolved.

NOW, that's only one personal incident that only proves that people can get all worked up over virtually nothing.

HOWEVER, let's admit it ... the use of "PC" terms and similar control structures is hardly limited to "the left," liberals, Democrats, or the fascio-communist-Kenyan-death-squads@MSNBC ... "PC" is and has been in full use by "the right," conservatives, Republicans, Neo-Christians, and associated media as well since the mid 1990s. Further, the pundits on "the right" tend to blindly ascribe anything and everything they don't like or disagree with to an imaginary, seemingly all-powerful group that is victimizing them (somehow, although they hate victims) and is ultimately trying to destroy America.

I am glad to accord respect to any and all that merit it, but I have two words for the whole PC phenomenon (on left and right) when we are so concerned with policing language that we lose track of the vital issues that face us and need to be addressed: unmitigated hogwash.

EDIT: However, I am equally amazed at the perception I have heard quite often here at ATS that gays and lesbians are "pushing it down our throats" or "throwing it in our faces" ... when the folks I know who fit into those categories are, by and large, just regular human beings who are doing their best to get along. They do want to be treated equally, but I have never heard even one ask for "special rights." Activist groups like GLAAD and HRC do work for equal rights, and do, on occasion, go overboard.

Not unlike the NAACP does on racial issues, or NOW used to on womens issues. Of course, these organizations are constantly bringing the issue up ... that's their raison d'etre.

I don't care to imagine what anyone does in private, and further, the mere mention of someones gay or straight status doesn't instigate some calvacade of images for me. Perhaps I'm just odd.


edit on 23Tue, 31 Dec 2013 23:10:01 -060013p1120141266 by Gryphon66 because: a bit more to say.

edit on 23Tue, 31 Dec 2013 23:23:51 -060013p1120141266 by Gryphon66 because: more stuff needed to be fixed. *sigh*



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   

th3dudeabides
reply to post by Onslaught2996
 


I'm ready to start killing these sick sob's, when the opportunity starts presenting itself shortly. Sick bastards like these pollute the species. THEY, as in pedophiles, can't be allowed to propagate. Courts don't have jursidiction. The only court for these pos's is the court of public opinion, as a jury member, execution is my vote.


Wow. Sorry for a one-line comment, but ... wow.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Gryphon66

EDIT: However, I am equally amazed at the perception I have heard quite often here at ATS that gays and lesbians are "pushing it down our throats" or "throwing it in our faces" ... when the folks I know who fit into those categories are, by and large, just regular human beings who are doing their best to get along.



I agree. The average gay or lesbian spends their lives just like the rest of us. Work, home, pay bills, mind own business.
It's all of the rest of the insanity that goes on. A guy says something and people lose their freaking minds. Mostly it's these special interest hit groups and media politics. Otherwise, no one would even notice.
It makes people angry and it intentionally creates problems. It doesn't help homosexuals or relations with them on anybody's part.
It's divisive.

Nearly 7 Billion people on this rock and every day they all jabber like magpies. Even the most well intentioned person will end up saying something that others won't like. Most will say something offensive. Some are just purely mean and are not worth even hearing at all.

It's gonna happen every day and in every school of though, race, religion, creed, breed, location, vocation and sex.

They just won't let it go.
They gotta keep that hostility high and the division deep.




edit on 31-12-2013 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 01:45 AM
link   

th3dudeabides
reply to post by Onslaught2996
 


I'm ready to start killing these sick sob's, when the opportunity starts presenting itself shortly. Sick bastards like these pollute the species. THEY, as in pedophiles, can't be allowed to propagate. Courts don't have jursidiction. The only court for these pos's is the court of public opinion, as a jury member, execution is my vote.

Me thinks you need to learn the definition of pedophile, pedophile being one that is interested in children that are before the age of puberty. To the best of my knowledge, once an individual developes their sexual characteristics and are of child bearing age, they are no longer pre-pubescent.
Correct me if I'm wrong but pre-pubescent girls don't have boobs or hairy arm pits nor do pre-pubescent boys have hairy legs or arm pits.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by MALBOSIA
 


"So when progressives say that girls of 13 can determine their own birth control, they're being pedophiles as well, right?"

How does that make them pedophiles? Maybe you should have read the post I was referring to before opening your mouth and looking foolish.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 




Freedom of speech?
The problem is it has nothing to to with freedom of speech. It has everything to do with being tired of getting told what we are supposed to think. I really don't think most on the right agree with Phil. They don't even care. They're just fed up with the PC control insanity.


That is Beezzer's issue with the whole thing and that is why I was very specific in my reply to him.

But since you brought it up... who is trying to tell you what to think? Phil Robertson certainly tried to tell people that homosexuality is a perverseness akin to bestiality. Some other people stood up and said "hey we're not perverts, hey A&E don't you claim to be advocates of the LGBT community?" Then some other people got mad that GLAAD stood up and defended homosexuality and decided to throw the taboo label of PC on them for it.

That's really what this PC crap boils down to for me. Certain types of people want to be able to insult and offend whoever they want (I support their right to do so) but... they want to be able to do so without anyone questioning them or anyone defending themselves. If you defend yourself or the targeted group/person then you're being PC. It's like saying if someone hits you, you have to stand there and take it, you can't hit back.

If you put an opinion out there in the public, EVERYONE has the right to comment on it. Seems more restrictive on speech to tell people they can't say anything back, in my opinion.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 08:35 AM
link   

MALBOSIA

Kali74
reply to post by beezzer
 


Sure because acknowledging that teenagers do stupid things too early in life, like have sex and wanting to make sure they don't get pregnant as a result is the same thing as saying you gotta marry girls at 15, before they become adult, independent women that won't put up with your chauvinist BS... is the same thing?


I don't think that is a fair assessment. You claiming that having sex at 15 is "stupid" is based on... what? Politicians? Lobby groups? Some paper back novel you read?

I was active at 13 but that is cause I was a year younger than everyone in my grade. Socially (and this is reality) teens begin being active at 14. The ones that are not I found were the ones with the closest relationship with their parents.

So to me the argument of sex between 14-18 is based only on how long we decided to raise our children and I guess that is determined by the k-12 school system. We can't kick them out till they are done school if we want them to finish without having to join the work force.

I'll be honest, I didn't even read the OP links. This whole duck thing is over my head but hearing people's reactions becoming lectures on morality where they have no domain is a topic I couldn't avoid...


The hell are you even on about? My point was to say that teenagers are going to have sex and will be stupid about it if they don't have access to birth control and that comparing one person saying that you gotta marry girls before they grow into women to the "left" wanting to make sure teenagers have access to birth control and condoms... was asinine.

Lecturing on morality where I have no domain?
WTF? LOL



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 


In other words shut up and take and the abuse.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 08:37 AM
link   
The outright stupidity, ignorance and hatred in this thread is disgusting.

Happy new year.




posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   
I have always argued that Equal Rights arise primarily from our status as human beings and are only recognized by our status as citizens of the United States (or UK, or whatever our political unit may be). Not to belabor the point unnecessarily, but they are human rights primarily before they are Women's rights or African American rights or Gay rights, et. al.

It has always seemed unfortunate to me that the tactics that must be deployed to "win back" certain levels of rights that have been trodden on or restricted (by traditions, laws, religious beliefs, etc.) have to involve a focus on the differences (gay, female, different skin color) rather than the similarity (human).

The "equality" portion arises from the fact that there are no innate differences between men and women that justify separate treatment under the law i.e. that would justify a diminished set of rights for one over the other. Same for race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, etc.

Here's the point of contention: there are reasonable boundaries where innate differences do allow for different treatment before the law (categories of rights) and these always involve the causation of harm by an individual to others or to themselves. Crime causes harm; criminals have diminished rights. The harm caused is usually intentional (serial murder, rape, child molestation etc.) but can sometimes include merely the potential or tangential capacity for harm (e.g. pedophilia, necrophilia etc.)

edit on 9Wed, 01 Jan 2014 09:20:14 -060014p092014166 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


Really well said, I've enjoyed your perspective in various threads over the past few days... Welcome to ATS if you are in fact new.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Onslaught2996
 



The right's favorite faux hilly billy Phil Robertson advocates pedophilia.


This is kind of a stupid thing to say.

There is a world of difference between 15 and 8. I tend to be more socially liberal when it comes to teenagers and sexuality.

But, the United States is extremely psychotic when it comes to sex in general.

The only part of what Phil Robertson said that I find nefarious is the concept of forced marriage. People should be free to choose their marriage partners.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by 0zzymand0s
 



I mean -- for a girl, "sexual activity" is - at worst - 3 minutes worth of being dominated by an insecure loser with a penis.


Do you have some hidden hatred for men?

So ALL heterosexual sex is engaged by innocent women and "losers with a penis?"



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join