Slog
News & ArtsThursday, March 14, 2013
Gay Marriage / Religion / LGBTQITSLFA NOM Calls Chief Justice John Roberts' Family "Second Best"
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM
Straight people who've adopted kids? Your families are second best, your kids are second best, and your parenting is second best. So says the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage. He said it in an interview with the Associated Press and he was specifically talking about United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Roberts' wife, and Roberts' two adopted children. AP:
“You’re looking at what is the best course societywide to get you the optimal result in the widest variety of cases. That often is not open to people in individual cases. Certainly adoption in families headed, like Chief Roberts’ family is, by a heterosexual couple, is by far the second-best option,” said John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage. Eastman also teaches law at Chapman University law school in Orange, Calif.
It's making headlines. Here, for example, is the front page of HuffPo right now:
John Aravosis pivots from NOM vs. the Roberts Family to the new pope vs. orphans. Looking forward to reading blog posts about the wisdom of NOM attacking the family of the Chief Justice on the eve of the court's decisions on gay marriage.
1
This is the sort of stunt which makes me wonder if the opposition hasn't been infiltrated by sleeper agents from our side, and they're deliberately doing crazy shit just to make the opposition fail.
The alternative -- that these folks really are that stupid -- is horrifying in a funny sort of way.
The alternative -- that these folks really are that stupid -- is horrifying in a funny sort of way.
3
I don't mind if they shoot themselves in the foot with such idiotic statements. So ... I guess the best thing for all involved would be for childless familes to remain so (probably a judgment from God, dontcha know), and to let abandoned children languish in foster care. Yup, that's the loving solution. /sarcasm.
4
@3,
Well, no. The "best" thing is to force the biological parents to keep the children, regardless if the biological parents want to be or are capable of being parents. It's important to remember that these people live in a fantasyland where parents don't neglect, beat, or rape their children, and, if that does happen, obviously either the child is lying or had it coming.
In all seriousness, that is what we're dealing with here. We have to share this country with these cretins.
Well, no. The "best" thing is to force the biological parents to keep the children, regardless if the biological parents want to be or are capable of being parents. It's important to remember that these people live in a fantasyland where parents don't neglect, beat, or rape their children, and, if that does happen, obviously either the child is lying or had it coming.
In all seriousness, that is what we're dealing with here. We have to share this country with these cretins.
6
I daresay that Roberts' adopted children (read: children) might have fared better being adopted by Chief Justice Roberts and his wife than they might have done with their biological parents. I'm no fan of his decisions - well, most of them (you go girl on the healthcare decision) - but I have no reason to believe that he and Mrs. Roberts aren't wonderful parents, and Lord knows the kids are getting advantages they might not have had otherwise.
What an insult - second-best option! Do these people have no shame? We know they have no class.
What an insult - second-best option! Do these people have no shame? We know they have no class.
7
I'm always happy to jump on the bandwagon as far as hating NOM and doubly so when we can get conservative stalwarts chewing on each other's jugular veins, but based strictly on what you've quoted here I think you're over reading this.
I think we all should be able to agree that the best possible option would be for happy loving biological parents to be able to support and care for their own biological children whenever possible. I don't see anything wrong with saying that's the best option for a kid. Of course, that's often not an option. Sometimes the bio parents can't, or won't take care of them. Sometimes the bio parents die. When that happens the next best option is for those kids to be adopted by loving parents. Here's where I disagree with NOM in that I believe it doesn't matter if those parents are same sex or opposite sex.
I have no interest in reading a whole interview with the shithead bigots at NOM but based just on this clip you posted here I have to agree. Adoption is the second best option after having loving healthy biological parents to take care of them.
I think we all should be able to agree that the best possible option would be for happy loving biological parents to be able to support and care for their own biological children whenever possible. I don't see anything wrong with saying that's the best option for a kid. Of course, that's often not an option. Sometimes the bio parents can't, or won't take care of them. Sometimes the bio parents die. When that happens the next best option is for those kids to be adopted by loving parents. Here's where I disagree with NOM in that I believe it doesn't matter if those parents are same sex or opposite sex.
I have no interest in reading a whole interview with the shithead bigots at NOM but based just on this clip you posted here I have to agree. Adoption is the second best option after having loving healthy biological parents to take care of them.
8
I refuse to believe that the Flintstones' love of their daughter Pebbles was any more or less pure than the Rubbles' love of their adopted son Bamm Bamm.
9
As an adopted child I second @6. Judging by the piece of paper I have about my bio parents, I am absolutely certain that my super amazing REAL parents (my adoptive ones) were absolutely my first best option. There is no way my teen bio mother (according to that paper also devout catholic, LOL) could have provided me with the amazing, supportive, stable childhood that my real parents did. They have been and continue to be there for me through every high and every low. And for fuck's sake I got a pony for my 6th birthday. Adoption FTW!
11
My fervent wish for America is that we strive to make our own families better instead of judging other families.
12
What conservatives and evangelicals TRULY want is for non-white, non-male, non-christians to be shamed and feel miserable, no matter what.
Whatever else they say is just window dressing. They want people to be fearful, angry, and miserable, because that is the only way they can get their politicians elected and their churches filled.
Whatever else they say is just window dressing. They want people to be fearful, angry, and miserable, because that is the only way they can get their politicians elected and their churches filled.
15
To say this about a politician would be inexcusable, but Roberts is Chief Justice, and deserves respect. This statement has to hurt him, and it illustrates a complete lack of respect for the Court and a single-minded interest in politics. It's vulgar.
17
Well, to be fair, the best option would be for children to only be born to parents that want children and are financially and emotionally equipped to raise them.
Perhaps someday, if we are lucky, there will be some sort of pill, device, or medical procedure to ensure that this is the case. Or at least substantially more likely.
Perhaps someday, if we are lucky, there will be some sort of pill, device, or medical procedure to ensure that this is the case. Or at least substantially more likely.
18
"Option?"
I don't think that word means what they think it means.
Adoption by loving parents is an act of love. Love is the kind of "option" we all can use. To have the cretins at NOM questioning or belittling it is beneath a worm's contempt.
I don't think that word means what they think it means.
Adoption by loving parents is an act of love. Love is the kind of "option" we all can use. To have the cretins at NOM questioning or belittling it is beneath a worm's contempt.
19
There are a couple of unspoken subtexts that are feeding into the heedless chatterbox that is Eastman's mouth. One is the extreme narcissistic evangelical Quiverfull notion that your life is without meaning if you aren't "fruitful" and don't burden the planet with at least a few of your own selfish-gene-buckets' worth of humanity; another is the related but more explicitly racist panic over trying to reproduce faster than people they look down on (and why help any of them survive to reproductive age through adoption?).
I experienced this myself with wonderful, decent, funny hetero friends who tipped over to the evangelical side and expressed their very deep dismay that I would not marry and have children, because (go figure) they thought any children I had would be wonderful special snowflakes indeed. I found out much later that they had been trying to conceive unsuccessfully for six years after marriage; I thought they had just decided to wait until their careers were well underway. Eventually they had two of their own. (This was back in the days, young'uns, when even good friends didn't necessarily share all their joys and sorrows.)
I experienced this myself with wonderful, decent, funny hetero friends who tipped over to the evangelical side and expressed their very deep dismay that I would not marry and have children, because (go figure) they thought any children I had would be wonderful special snowflakes indeed. I found out much later that they had been trying to conceive unsuccessfully for six years after marriage; I thought they had just decided to wait until their careers were well underway. Eventually they had two of their own. (This was back in the days, young'uns, when even good friends didn't necessarily share all their joys and sorrows.)
20
Dan,
This is the kind of histrionics that makes the reasonable middle roll their eyes at the liberal left. It’s really not extreme to say that, in a perfect world, all children would be born to loving, capable, cohabitating couples who conceive them intentionally and willfully, and that this would be best. Of course, we do not live in a perfect world so we make accommodation for a lot of less than best case scenarios. In fact, arguably, most of our decisions are to compromise on less than best case outcomes (I went to Palm Spring instead of Bali to get away from the cold this winter). It would be better to co-opt NOM’s words and say yes, there are compromises made in forming families, few are “perfect” most are arguably not “1st best”, but two same sex people in a loving relationship who want to love and care for a unwanted child are certainly far from “last best” and certainly much better than that child would have otherwise gotten.
It’s okay (and useful) to point out that some things, and people, (and even families), are better than others. We don’t all have to be 1st best to finish the race respectably.
This is the kind of histrionics that makes the reasonable middle roll their eyes at the liberal left. It’s really not extreme to say that, in a perfect world, all children would be born to loving, capable, cohabitating couples who conceive them intentionally and willfully, and that this would be best. Of course, we do not live in a perfect world so we make accommodation for a lot of less than best case scenarios. In fact, arguably, most of our decisions are to compromise on less than best case outcomes (I went to Palm Spring instead of Bali to get away from the cold this winter). It would be better to co-opt NOM’s words and say yes, there are compromises made in forming families, few are “perfect” most are arguably not “1st best”, but two same sex people in a loving relationship who want to love and care for a unwanted child are certainly far from “last best” and certainly much better than that child would have otherwise gotten.
It’s okay (and useful) to point out that some things, and people, (and even families), are better than others. We don’t all have to be 1st best to finish the race respectably.
21
I disagree completely w/ his baseline assumption, that there is an 'optimal' human society. A bit ironic that we inherited that concept from the boy-butt humpin' Greeks. But this is typical of the authoritarian mind-set. There is an absolute 'right' structure for humans to interact and that's that. Of course, that structure always happens to put the speaker at the top of the list of "good" people.
22
@7 - You contradicted yourself:
"Of course, that's often **not an option**. Sometimes the bio parents can't, or won't take care of them. Sometimes the bio parents die. When that happens **the next best option** is for those kids to be adopted by loving parents."
From "not an option" to "the next best option". Is the first option an actual option or not?
If the bio parents choose not to take care of their kid, then they know they shouldn't be parents. That means that the adoptive parents are, hopefully and presumably, the absolute best, #1 option, especially since they are actively choosing to be parents. They are a better option than the incapable bio parents. Regardless of the equivocation, calling any parents "2nd best" purely based on their child's biological or adoptive status is cruel and wrong.
"Of course, that's often **not an option**. Sometimes the bio parents can't, or won't take care of them. Sometimes the bio parents die. When that happens **the next best option** is for those kids to be adopted by loving parents."
From "not an option" to "the next best option". Is the first option an actual option or not?
If the bio parents choose not to take care of their kid, then they know they shouldn't be parents. That means that the adoptive parents are, hopefully and presumably, the absolute best, #1 option, especially since they are actively choosing to be parents. They are a better option than the incapable bio parents. Regardless of the equivocation, calling any parents "2nd best" purely based on their child's biological or adoptive status is cruel and wrong.
23
What's so special about biology-based parenting?
I like mine okay, but I imagine there are many people who could have raised me better and a huge swath who could have done about as well.
I don't think I am doing a bad job with my children, and their similarity to me is probably helping to cover for some deficiencies on my part, but I imagine there are some kids out there who would do even better under my care, and many that would do about as well, as well as some situations out there that would be even better for my kids, and many that would be about as good.
I love my parents and my kids, feel love in return, and wouldn't change it if I could, but that's the magic of love, not simple biology.
I like mine okay, but I imagine there are many people who could have raised me better and a huge swath who could have done about as well.
I don't think I am doing a bad job with my children, and their similarity to me is probably helping to cover for some deficiencies on my part, but I imagine there are some kids out there who would do even better under my care, and many that would do about as well, as well as some situations out there that would be even better for my kids, and many that would be about as good.
I love my parents and my kids, feel love in return, and wouldn't change it if I could, but that's the magic of love, not simple biology.
24
@20 Taking some other terminology out for a spin:
It’s really not extreme to say that, in a perfect world, all children would be the same race.
It’s really not extreme to say that, in a perfect world, all children would be able-bodied.
It’s really not extreme to say that, in a perfect world, all children would be straight.
"Of course, we do not live in a perfect world..."
It’s really not extreme to say that, in a perfect world, all children would be the same race.
It’s really not extreme to say that, in a perfect world, all children would be able-bodied.
It’s really not extreme to say that, in a perfect world, all children would be straight.
"Of course, we do not live in a perfect world..."
25
During a heated argument over parental notification, my state Rep invoked this exact same sentiment. An adopted parent can never have the bond a biological parent does, he said, trying to invalidate the opposing opinion of another child guardian on the issue at hand.
As it happens, his leg. aide was adopted.
As it happens, his leg. aide was adopted.
27
@22, I'm not contradicting myself, you're mistaking general "options" that a human child might have with the "options" available to a specific child.
Of the "options" that might be available to human children in general include (in no order of quality)
1) They might be born to loving happy parents who can take care of them.
2) They might be born to loving happy parents who are far to broke to care for them
3) They might be born gay to hateful bigots
4) They might be born to Wealthy parents who have no interest in parenting them
5) They might be born to parents who don't want or can't care for them and adopted by shitty people
6) They might be born to parents who don't want them and adopted by wonderful people.
All of these, and millions more, are "options" of what might happen to a human child but they are certainly not "options" available to each individual. Maybe you want to use a different word than option and I'm fine with that but I stand by my original statement that, all other things being equal (income, education, love, etc), it's probably better to be raised by birth parents than adopted parents but all things are never equal and certainly being adopted by loving parents is better than bouncing around foster care or being raised by shitty birth parents.
Of the "options" that might be available to human children in general include (in no order of quality)
1) They might be born to loving happy parents who can take care of them.
2) They might be born to loving happy parents who are far to broke to care for them
3) They might be born gay to hateful bigots
4) They might be born to Wealthy parents who have no interest in parenting them
5) They might be born to parents who don't want or can't care for them and adopted by shitty people
6) They might be born to parents who don't want them and adopted by wonderful people.
All of these, and millions more, are "options" of what might happen to a human child but they are certainly not "options" available to each individual. Maybe you want to use a different word than option and I'm fine with that but I stand by my original statement that, all other things being equal (income, education, love, etc), it's probably better to be raised by birth parents than adopted parents but all things are never equal and certainly being adopted by loving parents is better than bouncing around foster care or being raised by shitty birth parents.
28
@16, laugh at Scalia (he seems to put himself and his politics above the Court anyway), but Roberts cast a vote to save its reputation.
@20, a 'perfect world' arguments are the disingenuous bullshit everyone rolls their eyes at. In your perfect world, wouldn't we only be friends with our relatives? Do our relatives give us everything we need, such that we don't need friends outside our family? Since that's not true for adults, you must be imposing it on children because your politics mean more to you than their well-being.
@20, a 'perfect world' arguments are the disingenuous bullshit everyone rolls their eyes at. In your perfect world, wouldn't we only be friends with our relatives? Do our relatives give us everything we need, such that we don't need friends outside our family? Since that's not true for adults, you must be imposing it on children because your politics mean more to you than their well-being.
29
@24 Thank you for taking us on that little spin down Idon'tthinkthroughwhatIsay Avenue. The homes there all look so nice on the outside but real monsters dwell within.
30
Maybe NOM is right. They're probably still pissed about Juno. I mean who isn't? That little slut Ellen Page made adoption "cool" and look what happened.
Listen to NOM, kids. Get an abortion, will you? Listen to NOM.
Listen to NOM, kids. Get an abortion, will you? Listen to NOM.
31
@7 and 20
Eastman didn't just say "not the best." He didn't even just say "second best." He said that a family formed by adoption is "by far the second best option." That "by far" speaks volumes.
@20 wrote "It’s okay (and useful) to point out that some things, and people, (and even families), are better than others. " Perhaps so--on a case by case basis. The man, wife and two kids who are my neighbors on the left might impress me as being a stronger, healthier family than the man, wife and two bio kids who are my neighbors to the right. But that has much more to do with the individuals involved than it does with any inherent set of circumstances.
My guess is that families formed through adoption--in general--tend to be stronger and healthier than many bio families, because of the level of effort involved in adoption and the scrutiny which adoptive parents face.
But I would hesitate to make unqualified, blanket generalizations about either category, because there is so much variation in individual circumstance. And I would never describe either as "by far the second best option."
(and--as a side note--what would Eastman say about a married couple with multiple children, some of whom are bio-kids and some of whom are adopted? Does the presence of bio kids ennoble the "second best" parent-child relationships in the same family? Or does the presence of the "second best" parent-child relationships in the family somehow degrade the relations of the bio parents with their bio kids? I'm just curious, because I know of many such families).
Eastman didn't just say "not the best." He didn't even just say "second best." He said that a family formed by adoption is "by far the second best option." That "by far" speaks volumes.
@20 wrote "It’s okay (and useful) to point out that some things, and people, (and even families), are better than others. " Perhaps so--on a case by case basis. The man, wife and two kids who are my neighbors on the left might impress me as being a stronger, healthier family than the man, wife and two bio kids who are my neighbors to the right. But that has much more to do with the individuals involved than it does with any inherent set of circumstances.
My guess is that families formed through adoption--in general--tend to be stronger and healthier than many bio families, because of the level of effort involved in adoption and the scrutiny which adoptive parents face.
But I would hesitate to make unqualified, blanket generalizations about either category, because there is so much variation in individual circumstance. And I would never describe either as "by far the second best option."
(and--as a side note--what would Eastman say about a married couple with multiple children, some of whom are bio-kids and some of whom are adopted? Does the presence of bio kids ennoble the "second best" parent-child relationships in the same family? Or does the presence of the "second best" parent-child relationships in the family somehow degrade the relations of the bio parents with their bio kids? I'm just curious, because I know of many such families).
32
Usually when a Christian says something I disagree with, I really do try to see how it might make sense within the context of their worldview. This statement is weird because it doesn't fit with the "don't abort, adopt!" thing. I can only conclude that this asshat is of the "don't have sex ever unless you can raise the kid" variety, but he goes a step further -- instead of just sticking the sex-haver with responsibility, he's apparently okay with the innocent child just being an orphan forever should the parents put him/her up for adoption.
33
As Alan said, 20: You do not speak for the moderate middle.
I fell in love with my first born by looking after her. Sure, there was a bond just after birth, but both her father and I fell for her while caring for her. Had she been adopted, we would have fallen for her just as hard.
As an actual moderate independent, I am completely mystified by arguments based on what would be true in a hypothetical world filled with hypothetical people, rather than solutions that apply to actual real life.
I fell in love with my first born by looking after her. Sure, there was a bond just after birth, but both her father and I fell for her while caring for her. Had she been adopted, we would have fallen for her just as hard.
As an actual moderate independent, I am completely mystified by arguments based on what would be true in a hypothetical world filled with hypothetical people, rather than solutions that apply to actual real life.
34
Never said adoptive parents aren’t loving (and frequently more loving) than bio parents (be they together or not). I’m just saying that (and I think Dan’s ”every child deserves a father and a mother” columns prove this) that some families ARE better than others. If the Roberts family is second from ideal (and who’s to say the “by far second” couldn’t delegate the distance between 2nd and 3rd?) then let’s accept that premise and say yes. It’s not the golden ideal. But it’s pretty fucking close. A lot better (FAR better) than any option that does not include loving and responsible parents (plural or single). Our (gay/single/adoptive) families are also a lot better (FAR better) than each and every option that does not include a loving parent, and are also pretty fucking good, even if they are not the golden ideal. In fact, show me this golden ideal… I’m not convinced it exists. Families are by nature messy businesses.
Remind them that if 1st best is the only acceptable parenting option their going to get equally fucked by the “best is the enemy of good”.
Fuck, if nothing else pick up the mantle of 2nd best with pride and welcome the Roberts family (and every other heterosexual adoptive or non-standardly composed family) to our camp. Help NOM remind them that they are no different from the rest of us 2nd besters. (Who wants to be a 1st percenter anyway?)
Remind them that if 1st best is the only acceptable parenting option their going to get equally fucked by the “best is the enemy of good”.
Fuck, if nothing else pick up the mantle of 2nd best with pride and welcome the Roberts family (and every other heterosexual adoptive or non-standardly composed family) to our camp. Help NOM remind them that they are no different from the rest of us 2nd besters. (Who wants to be a 1st percenter anyway?)
35
@20 The problem isn't just his incredibly boneheaded choice of words; the sentiment is completely (willfully?) misguided. Even loving, capable, cohabitating couples who conceive their children willfully and intentionally can be fuck ups. It's not the means by which the children were brought in to the world that matters but means by which they are raised.
37
I'm with @23: WTF is so special about biological parents? Why would they be any better for a child than adopted parents? If anyone has any stats on that, I'd love to know about them.
The fact is, even if the only people who ever conceived were people who were completely and utterly able to be fantastic parents, there would still be orphans because sometimes, people are unlucky and die while their kid is still young enough to need parents. I think it's ridiculous that we're even thinking about whether adoption is a "second-best" option. In many, many cases, it is definitely the best option, because the other options are usually either shitty or non-existant.
The fact is, even if the only people who ever conceived were people who were completely and utterly able to be fantastic parents, there would still be orphans because sometimes, people are unlucky and die while their kid is still young enough to need parents. I think it's ridiculous that we're even thinking about whether adoption is a "second-best" option. In many, many cases, it is definitely the best option, because the other options are usually either shitty or non-existant.
38
@37: Deep-seated psychological issues on both sides over "replacement", potentially weaker parental-instinct trigger due to less-similar appearances...not the biggest issues in the world, but still significant. Traditional wisdom is that adopted kids often act out rebelliously and adopted parents find themselves overcompensating.
39
Wow NOM is playing dirty. They're already getting ready to lose. "The court doesn't really think gay marriage is fine and dandy, Chief Roberts was just mad that we were mean to him."
Fuck them.
Fuck them.
41
@20: Two problems. First:
NOM operates under a fundamental assumption that even in two-parent families, a man and a woman are a superior combination of parents compared to two parents of the same sex. This is arrant nonsense. Children of same-sex parents are shown in studies to fare just as well long-term as children of mixed-sex parents. The one study that concluded otherwise was so massively misconstructed, it should have been called fraud, not flawed.
So it isn't right to say that a mother and a father are a better choice than any other possibility, because it just ain't true.
Second:
It’s okay (and useful) to point out that some things, and people, (and even families), are better than others. We don’t all have to be 1st best to finish the race respectably.
That is absolutely _not_ what NOM believes. They have repeatedly made statements that their basis for keeping gay marriage illegal is that it is inherently a second-best environment for children -- in other words, that children need to be in a first-best situation or else not at all -- with force of law behind it if necessary.
NOM operates under a fundamental assumption that even in two-parent families, a man and a woman are a superior combination of parents compared to two parents of the same sex. This is arrant nonsense. Children of same-sex parents are shown in studies to fare just as well long-term as children of mixed-sex parents. The one study that concluded otherwise was so massively misconstructed, it should have been called fraud, not flawed.
So it isn't right to say that a mother and a father are a better choice than any other possibility, because it just ain't true.
Second:
It’s okay (and useful) to point out that some things, and people, (and even families), are better than others. We don’t all have to be 1st best to finish the race respectably.
That is absolutely _not_ what NOM believes. They have repeatedly made statements that their basis for keeping gay marriage illegal is that it is inherently a second-best environment for children -- in other words, that children need to be in a first-best situation or else not at all -- with force of law behind it if necessary.
42
I'm willing to give Eastman the benefit of the doubt and assume that "by far the second-best option" was supposed to mean "while not first-best, very close to it, and far ahead of the rest of the pack."
But that's as much slack as he gets. It's still complete bullshit -- just like pretty much everything else NOM says, lies and distortions of the worst caliber.
For starters, those who adopt are by definition a better choice of parents than the people who gave up the child for adoption. Those who cannot or will not raise their own offspring are by definition worse parents than those who choose to take up the responsibility for them.
The philosophical distinction Eastman was trying to draw is moot and meaningless. One does not legislate based on a situation that exists solely as wishful thinking in the heads of ideologues.
But that's as much slack as he gets. It's still complete bullshit -- just like pretty much everything else NOM says, lies and distortions of the worst caliber.
For starters, those who adopt are by definition a better choice of parents than the people who gave up the child for adoption. Those who cannot or will not raise their own offspring are by definition worse parents than those who choose to take up the responsibility for them.
The philosophical distinction Eastman was trying to draw is moot and meaningless. One does not legislate based on a situation that exists solely as wishful thinking in the heads of ideologues.
43
"Looking to earn extra cash online?
When you take a break , go and click some advertises and make some tasks, i use clixsens for 1 hour a day, and I earn about 100 dolars in first week.After you create an acount , invite some friends to join this.you will earn comission from their earnings.
The address is :
http://www.clixsense.com/?5244493
We will talk more on the site.You can ask me for help there.
Payments Via Check, Payza, PayPal and Liberty Reserve
PS: IT IS NOT A VIRUS"
When you take a break , go and click some advertises and make some tasks, i use clixsens for 1 hour a day, and I earn about 100 dolars in first week.After you create an acount , invite some friends to join this.you will earn comission from their earnings.
The address is :
http://www.clixsense.com/?5244493
We will talk more on the site.You can ask me for help there.
Payments Via Check, Payza, PayPal and Liberty Reserve
PS: IT IS NOT A VIRUS"
44
Sexy Lingerie Adult Clothing Superstore Sex Shop Womens Lingerie
Welcome to SexyEveningDelights.com, we carry a large selection of lingerie, adult toys and adult novelties,the best adult items. Spice up your sex life, a sexy thong, a sexy bra, some sexy lingerie or some sexy panties. Maybe some Adult Toys to enhance your relationship. Or even a wig or costume for some dress up fun, we've carry a wide assortment of items to fullfill your ultimate sexual fantasies.
Welcome to SexyEveningDelights.com, we carry a large selection of lingerie, adult toys and adult novelties,the best adult items. Spice up your sex life, a sexy thong, a sexy bra, some sexy lingerie or some sexy panties. Maybe some Adult Toys to enhance your relationship. Or even a wig or costume for some dress up fun, we've carry a wide assortment of items to fullfill your ultimate sexual fantasies.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
Slog Super Poll: Who Should Be Mayor? by Dominic Holden
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
Tim Burgess Quits the Mayor's Race by Dominic Holden
-
Meanwhile in Toronto by Dan Savage
-
In Which I Do Not Declare My Candidacy for Seattle City Council by Goldy
-
Slog Overnight by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (44) RSS