Life

‘Duck Dynasty’ dad: STD’s are God’s wrath for immorality, homosexuality

‘Duck Dynasty’ dad: STD’s are God’s wrath for immorality, homosexuality
Phil Robertson
Phil Robertson

“Duck Dynasty” patriarch Phil Robertson is back, with a new message that sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, are God’s wrath for immoral conduct, such as homosexuality.

Robertson made the remarks in an appearance Tuesday on “Washington Watch” with Tony Perkins, head of the anti-gay hate group Family Research Council.

Robertson was promoting his new book, “unPHILtered: The Way I See It.” And the way he sees it is this:

“Do you think it’s a coincidence that all of these debilitating — and literally that can cause death — diseases follow that kind of conduct? God says, ‘One woman, one man,’ and everyone says, ‘Oh, that’s old hat, that’s that old Bible stuff.'”

Robertson explains that married heterosexual couples are “not going to get chlamydia, and gonorrhea, and syphilis, and AIDS.”

“[E]ither it’s the wildest coincidence ever that horrible diseases follow immoral conduct, or, it’s God saying, ‘There’s a penalty for that kind of conduct.’ I’m leaning toward there’s a penalty toward it.”

Listen:

Last week, in an interview with ABC News, Robertson claimed, “I’m as much of a homophobe as Jesus was.”

Last year, Robertson set off a firestorm after GQ magazine quoted him making racist statements and anti-gay remarks in which he linked homosexual behavior to bestiality.

A&E suspended him for nine days, and Robertson later issued an apology. He revived his anti-gay remarks earlier this year in an Easter Sunday sermon.

Don't forget to share:

Support vital LGBTQ+ journalism

Reader contributions help keep LGBTQ Nation free, so that queer people get the news they need, with stories that mainstream media often leaves out. Can you contribute today?

Cancel anytime · Proudly LGBTQ+ owned and operated

Plaintiffs refute Texas AG’s claim that same-sex marriage is bad for kids

Previous article

Fla. judge vacates same-sex marriage ruling on legal technicality

Next article