Gay Marriage

Kerfuffle over Gay Parenting Study Raises Important Question: Aren't These Studies Bloody Stupid?


Adorable little stoners-to-be

A social science study concluding that children of gay parents have suckier lives than those of straight parents, contradicting previous studies, has led to an outcry over some odd classification measures.

Mark Regnerus, associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas in Austin, recently published a study analyzing the lives of the adult children of same-sex relationships. He writes about the outcome at Slate:

Even after including controls for age, race, gender, and things like being bullied as a youth, or the gay-friendliness of the state in which they live, such respondents were more apt to report being unemployed, less healthy, more depressed, more likely to have cheated on a spouse or partner, smoke more pot, had trouble with the law, report more male and female sex partners, more sexual victimization, and were more likely to reflect negatively on their childhood family life, among other things.

Before you ask, yes, Regnerus is classifying smoking more marijuana and having more sexual partners as a negative outcome of being the child of same-sex parents. You've got to love it when an alleged scientific study is tainted from the very start with biases of what counts as a bad or negative experience.

But that's not the main source of criticism of Regnerus' science here. What has the blogosphere upset is how he classified same-sex families for his study. He compared across several different types of families – married heteros, lesbian parents, gay parents, single parents, adoptive parents, et cetera. But, in order to bolster the still-statistically-low numbers of adult children of gay parents, if either of the child's parents had ever had a gay sexual encounter, it overruled any other classification. So a child raised by a lesbian couple was placed in the category of lesbian parents. But so was a child raised by a single mom who was a lesbian, or ever had a single same-sex encounter that the child was aware of. The children of any closeted politician or celebrity caught in a public gay scandal would be lumped in the gay categories, even though they likely bear absolutely no comparative resemblance to a child raised his or her whole life by a gay couple. If the child caught Daddy kissing Santa Claus: gay. So it's not comparing apples to apples or even apples to oranges; it's comparing apples to a whole fruit salad. He's comparing children of married straight couples to children of any number of different types of same-sex familes.

The objection that Regnerus is deliberately gaming the study to make gay families appear less stable than straight families by the nature of his classifications does appear valid, regardless of whether it was a deliberately sinister intent on his part.

The $800,000 study was privately funded by the conservative Witherspoon Institute and also the Bradley Foundation (which has donated money to a number of libertarian interests, including the Reason Foundation), so at least nobody's tax dollars were wasted.

The larger question remains unaddressed: Aren't these studies stupid? It's probably going to take at least another decade or so to really get enough numbers to evaluate the experiences of kids of gay parents.  In justifying his research methods, Regnerus explains that he wanted to get a greater cross-section than other gay family studies have managed so far, due to the relatively small sample size. He may have succeeded in that one area at the expense of the credibility of the study's results.

Not that credibility really matters in studies like these. These studies, whether they show gay parents as the same, better, or worse than the heteros, are meant to be used as weapons in the culture war of gay marriage and adoption, to be excerpted in blogs and news stories, to be entered into evidence and quoted in court cases, and to be thrown out during message board debates that haven't been Godwinned yet. There's nothing about them that actually serves any valid scientific purpose.

NEXT: Ask a Libertarian: What Did We Learn?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Does a single parent count as same sex?

    1. Oops. I was making a joke about any single parent before I finished RTFA.

    2. If the single parent is gay or even ever had a same-sex encounter that the child was aware of, yes.

  2. So it’s not comparing apples to apples or even apples to oranges; it’s comparing apples to a whole fruit salad.

    Excellent, btw.

    1. I’d put money on Shackford being unaware of the pun.

      1. I was well aware of it. I was trying to decide whether to lampshade it or let the commenters have at it.

  3. Conclusion: It isn’t fine! It has two daddies, you call that fine? It may be fine on the outside, but on the inside it’s confused and embarrassed. Look at the freak egg! It has two daddies! Two daddies! Two daddies! C’mon class, let’s rip on the freak egg!

    1. There is always a relevant South Park quote.

  4. Are all sociology studies stupid if they can be gamed like this?

    1. Are all sociology studies stupid if they can be gamed like this?


    2. Yes. I give this study exactly as much credence as the pro-gay parents studies.

  5. I believe this study will be proven correct in the long run. You could probably pick apart the biases in any of the pro gay family studies as well. All social science studies have biases. Look at human societies how did the vast majority form families? The family unit could have formed (and did form) in any number of possible combinations, male/female won the race. There is a reason for that. If I had to bet, I would always pick the child of an heterosexual intact family to out perform any other possible family unit offspring on average. The key is on average.

    1. Look at human societies how did the vast majority form families? The family unit could have formed (and did form) in any number of possible combinations, male/female won the race

      Actually, if you look at the majority of history it was male/female/female/female/(as many females as I can fit in my harem)

      Jus’ sayin’

      1. But as we evolved as a species and became more prolific speakers, men realized out of necessity that one woman was sufficient for breeding purposes and more than one woman simply invites annoying and banal chatter into one’s life.

        My wife watches that show Sister Wives. Everytime I catch a glimpse in passing, I wonder why any man would choose to have multiple wives. I love mine very much, but one is more than enough for me.

        1. I wonder why any man would choose to have multiple wives.

          Oh, I’m guessing… for sex, and babies. (I hear they’re related somehow.)

          1. Yeah, they’re related…if you’re a homophobe.

      2. This, and also human societies have been wrong about many things.

      3. If by “history” you mean since the invention of written language, then yes.

        If you mean since the dawn of man, the most common family unit was probably dozens of M’s and dozens of F’s.

        1. If you mean since the dawn of man, the most common family unit was probably dozens of M’s and dozens of F’s.


        2. No. Pre-history the norm was one M and several F’s.
          1. Early modern men died early and often from hunting, the elements, and fighting.
          2. Hetro male DNA is programmed to be very possessive of females – so that they weren’t wasting their short, hard lives raising another man’s offspring.

          1. If you’re talking about H. sapiens or H. neanderthalensis then yes. But I suspect australopithecus life was closer to that of the all-sex, all the time life of the Bonobos.

      4. You must have a big harem……

    2. It formed that way because the majority of males and females are attracted to the opposite sex. Gay families could be “superior” (not that there is any scientific way to judge the merits of a family) but heterosexual families would still be the mainstream.

    3. “The family unit could have formed (and did form) in any number of possible combinations, male/female won the race.”

      Biology couldn’t pssibly have anything to do with that?

    4. “The family unit could have formed (and did form) in any number of possible combinations, male/female won the race.”

      Biology couldn’t possibly have anything to do with that?

  6. But so was a child raised by a single mom who was a lesbian, or ever had a single same-sex encounter that the child was aware of. The children of any closeted politician or celebrity caught in a public gay scandal would be lumped in the gay categories, even though they likely bear absolutely no comparative resemblance to a child raised his or her whole life by a gay couple.

    Admittedly, I have to think the number of kids who found out their parent was TEH GHEY!!! through some bizarre Larry Craig/John Travolta type media frenzy is fairly small enough so as to be completely moot.

    TEH GHEY that this inclusion ends up skewing towards inclusing would be the John Walker Lindh’s dad gay, the kind where after 20 years of marriage, dad comes out, starts schtooping dudes, and leaves the suburban house for the urban bathhouse. That will skew the study in the same way, but let’s not act like they’re absorbing kids who have to see the whole sordid affair played out in front of a national audience.

    1. I have an acquaintance who was raised in a very wealthy family in Los Angeles. After 30 years of marriage, her father revealed he was gay. Her parents divorced, split the assets and parted ways. She is successful in the movie industry, and her brother is a successful banker. Everything seemed to work out well for the kids. Except they hated dad’s new boyfriend. I met him once, and he was a pill.

  7. Kerfuffle? Seriously?

    1. Like all journalists, I use words in headlines that no human being actually ever uses, ever.

      1. Former-Reason intern James Taranto has done much to popularize the term.

    2. Its an awesome neologism.

  8. The important point from a libertarian perspective:

    so at least nobody’s tax dollars were wasted

    Sounds like the “deniers” don’t think “the science is settled” on this one.
    If the study “showed” children of gay families were happy, healthy wealthy and better looking we’d never hear the end of how absolutely valid and true the study is.

    Gotta love the “peer review” from such esteemed authorities in the field as Slate, The New Republic, and Box Turtle Bulletin

    There’s nothing about them that actually serves any valid scientific purpose.

    The same can be said about most social science research.

    1. Is this box turtle bulletin at all related to or funded by a certain non-singlet cisgendered aromantic who has a turtle as one of her many invented personalities?

  9. YOU Totally NAILED it Scott! In fact he admits today that he only found 2 real true Lesbians and both of their kids turned out fine L to the O to the L!

    Box Turtle Bulletin Broke the Story on Saturday and I was fortunate to have read it and right away e-mailed Regnerus and surprisingly he e-mailed me back. You can read our back and forth e-mails at Box Turtle
    where he admits to me he could not find a single true Gay Father and only a couple true Lesbians.

    Today he came out and said it was in fact only 2. AND they raised GREAT KIDS! This per his e-mail to me. ha-ha-ha

    With his feet to the fire he is finally coming a bit more honest I think. Read this and let me know if you agree.…..m-experts/

    It is amazing what 24 hours of intense scrutiny will do to some peoples self defense 🙂

    We owe an enormous debt to Jim Burroway at Box Turtle he busted his butt on Saturday analyzing this going to the library at his local University to get copies of materials. You gotta say Power to the People!

    1. There are no true libertarians either.

      1. That’s just what a true libertarian would say.

  10. I mean every single article on *every single blog or news article* that has been written since Sunday I have entered a comment showing his e-mails to me that the study was really about children who were raised in a MIXED ORIENTATION MARRIAGE or MIXED ORIENTATION SEXUAL UNION. And then I directly e-mailed the authors on a lot of them. I must have signed up for 25 various news and blog accounts in the last 24 hours. And that is in addition to the ones I already had.

    This is a story about having the truth and making sure the truth got out right away. We went toe to toe with every article published because Jim Burroway had done all that work on Saturday. It is amazing really how just a few people dedicated and working non stop EARLY ON can get the truth out. We can make a difference.

    I always included this graphic from my good friend Rob Tisinai which this graphic says it BEST.…..mning5.png

    I can’t tell you how rewarded I feel after all of that work to read your article. Because YOU nailed it, and I didn’t have to write to you first. You just got it. I feel like maybe I can rest now.

    1. Somebody is sweet on Scott !

  11. 5. Conclusion
    As scholars of same-sex parenting aptly note, same-sex couples have and will continue to raise children. American courts are finding arguments against gay marriage decreasingly persuasive (Rosenfeld, 2007). This study is intended to neither undermine nor affirm any legal rights concerning such. The tenor of the last 10 years of academic discourse about gay and lesbian parents suggests that there is little to nothing about them that might be negatively associated with child development, and a variety of things that might be uniquely positive. The results of analyzing a rare large probability sample reported herein, however, document numerous, consistent differences among young adults who reported maternal lesbian behavior (and to a lesser extent, paternal gay behavior) prior to age 18. While previous studies suggest that children in planned GLB families seem to fare comparatively well, their actual representativeness among all GLB families in the US may be more modest than research based on convenience samples has presumed.


    1. Although the findings reported herein may be explicable in part by a variety of forces uniquely problematic for child development in lesbian and gay families?including a lack of social support for parents, stress exposure resulting from persistent stigma, and modest or absent legal security for their parental and romantic relationship statuses?the empirical claim that no notable differences exist must go. While it is certainly accurate to affirm that sexual orientation or parental sexual behavior need have nothing to do with the ability to be a good, effective parent, the data evaluated herein using population-based estimates drawn from a large, nationally-representative sample of young Americans suggest that it may affect the reality of family experiences among a significant number.


      1. Do children need a married mother and father to turn out well as adults? No, if we observe the many anecdotal accounts with which all Americans are familiar. Moreover, there are many cases in the NFSS where respondents have proven resilient and prevailed as adults in spite of numerous transitions, be they death, divorce, additional or diverse romantic partners, or remarriage. But the NFSS also clearly reveals that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults?on multiple counts and across a variety of domains?when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day. Insofar as the share of intact, biological mother/father families continues to shrink in the United States, as it has, this portends growing challenges within families, but also heightened dependence on public health organizations, federal and state public assistance, psychotherapeutic resources, substance use programs, and the criminal justice system.

        I don’t see anything too controversial in his conclusion.

        1. So basically it’s “I had to publish something to justify the funding for this scientifically worthless study.”

  12. Social science–the more important the issue, the less reliable our conclusions!

  13. Even if we find that children of gay parents are more traumatized growing up, whose fault is that? The parents’? Their classmates’? There are too many factors, even with credible numbers. The solution may be more tolerance, not more restriction. But of course, only the latter can be enforced.

  14. Oh, the study is certainly stupid. But I suspect that if the study (or a similar one with the same methodology) had shown the opposite results, the same people bashing it would be hailing it, and vice versa. (Reason would not be immune, given Shikia posting on that “poor women who work are happier than poor women who are housewives” study.)

    It would never particularly *shock* me that minorities of any sort are less happy or ill-treated or made fun of in a society. That has nothing to do with whether their behavior should be legal, though.

  15. Not sure what any of this has to do with libertarianism. Just as a given, let’s say that the study is correct and then some. If your gayness screws up your kid, so what? What would that have to do with your parental rights? You don’t take a kid away from their parents if they are heavy drinkers, and you shouldn’t take them away if the parents are pot smokers as well. There exist thousands of ways that you will screw up your kid that should have no bearing on parental rights when the alternative is worse for the kid, and same sex coupling is just one of them (if the premise is accepted — I don’t). Plus, sociological studies are all committed by perverts. Why are you reading that kind of smut, Scott?

    1. Exactly, and even if we accept that the state has good reasons to take a kid away, isn’t that something that should be evaluated on an individual basis?

      1. It certainly should be based upon the individual circumstances, and if they don’t involve provable abuse or economic destitution the state needs to take a hike.

        There should be a strict separation of political policy and sociology, and that is my fundamental concern here. Studies like these are used to justify policy whether the originators of them intend that to be the case or not. What if in the next ten to twenty years, follow up studies prove this one to be accurate, and at the same time, homosexual culture is not in the ascendency that it is up to this point? Without the non-coercion principle as the central doctrine overriding Bloombergian nanny statism there is no where for them to turn. Bigotry becomes a scientific matter and quelling the choice of homosexuals becomes a priority of those who think we all should be ‘healthy’ as a way to advance the interest of the state.

        1. I think that’s right. What are your thoughts on The Bell Curve? Do you think Murray was irresponsible to have written it? I go back and forth on whether stuff that like contributes to a broader discussion. I mean, he’s careful to say that everyone should be addressed on an individual basis, but the temptation is to draw broader policy conclusions from these studies, else there’s no purpose. Maybe “irresponsible” is the wrong word.

          1. It is not so much the studies that are the problem but the temptation to put them into action to further policy. You make a good example with Murray. Whether or not his detractors were right or wrong they really had no other choice but to take the position that they did given the broader framework of what they believe to be valid uses of political power. Murray, himself, was in this boat. I remember he wrote a follow up essay using his study to justify affirmative action. Such a unholy mess, and it all could have been avoided and scholars allowed to do their own thing if a libertarian social framework was assumed in the first place.

            1. social political framework

    2. IOW, there is nothing inherently libertarian about rejecting or accepting this study because the validity of activity under the libertarian paragon is not based upon the ‘healthiness’ of that action but instead the non-coercion principle. If you don’t accept that principle, and progressives don’t as a rule, then if a behavior is potentially ‘unhealthy’ that is also within their political and social sanction then they have to deny the activity is potentially ‘unhealthy’ for the purpose of political containment. Thus, even if they are right, their opinion cannot be trusted given the factors that went into making it.

    3. Because I am a pervert.

      My justification for writing about it is kind of hidden in the last graph (which I wish I had done a better job of weaving through the story): These studies are used in court arguments on marriage/adoption issues and the outcomes could affect individual liberty like parental rights.

      1. Indeed,

        There’s nothing about them that actually serves any valid scientific purpose.

        That should have been the lede.

  16. The most salient point for any form of social science research is that it is rarely ever conducted in a matter that would allow for causal explanation. Sociology is exceptionally prone to causality issues, because individual humans and social groups vary so wildly and are subjected to a wide range of external pressures and influences.

    In my opinion, the problem is not with the study itself in the sense that he has essentially properly performed a rigorous statistical analysis of the data set, but rather that people have made a causal leap and attacked the study as though it was attempting to establish such. It made no such claims and no one should draw causal conclusions from the research. In reality it only points out statistically significant differences within the dataset studied. People have got to get it through their head that significant differences in statistical analyses are not causal explanations.

  17. OT:
    Guy has problems with Blue Shield medical care insurance (according to him); neither article nor comments see Obamacare as a possible cause:

    “Martin said he felt trapped in his policy because his son, who is now an adult but remains on the family policy, suffered a sports injury as a teenager…”…..1OUGKA.DTL

    1. It’s kinda fucked up when the government forces people a gun point to buy your product and then you turn around and raise the prices on them.

      Health insurance companies are a scourge, a government created Frankenstein that have pretty much wrecked any hope of a free market health care system. Fuck ’em with the business end of a rusty clawhammer.

      1. There’s no doubt, starting with the wage-fixing post WWII. Nearly every incentive in the medical-care insurance biz since then has been perverse.
        But the brain-deads writing and commenting seem to think that Obamacare should have been a fix for all that rather than a further distortion.

        1. Oh yeah, I don’t really can’t stand those people that are shocked, yes SHOCKED!, after the government and big business collude to write legislation that straps one on and fucks the American people that government and big business are lubin’ us up for a reaming.

          Fucking people.


          1. That was really garbled, you get the gist of it though, right?

  18. I will admit that I was not paying enough attention to this issue. For a long time I thought “same sex marriage” referred to any monogomous marriage which has gone so long that the sex has gone past boring to monotonous, as in “agghh – same sex again?”.

    1. Wife comes home from her shift at the hospital one evening last week.

      She says, ‘you wouldn’t believe the day I had. Frustration, shear frustration.’

      She pulls out her smokes.

      ‘After my shit’n’smoke (what she calls the routine, she wont use the hospital toilets for a #2), we’re gonna have sex!’

      I asks her, ‘you’re going to shower, right?’

      She laughs like it is the craziest suggestion she ever heard.

      Last Saturday, I tell her, I’m going to play Left4Dead over Robert’s. She says, ‘alright, but you gotta suck my dick first.’
      I say in a slow sing song question wondering where this was going, ‘you don’t have a dick?’

      She says, ‘well, I guess you can’t go over Robert’s then.’

      Married life is so awesome.

      1. Sooo..? What happened? Finish the fucking story, man! What about the glands?

        1. She just used a little leverage to get me to run to the store for her before going over Robert’s place. I didn’t want to admit to the last part there as it is pretty pussywhooped.

          1. That’s not that bad. What’s a run to the store?

      2. TMI, Killaz…

        1. But I didn’t even mention the strap on! Wait . . . now that I did, I guess I have to explain what happened nex

          1. No, you don’t.

    2. There is an amusing Internet cartoon about that

  19. You know, the Nazi’s didn’t like gay marriage, either.

      1. There are progressive Jews that don’t mind gay marriage. Only the Orthodox sects look down upon it.

        1. Don’t be obtuse General. I meant the Nazi’s also didn’t like the Jews. I’m sure Jews and their progressive (Democrat) values fully support gay marriage… what’s that you say about Orthodox?

          1. Looks like my little joke flew over as well as a Chip Bok cartoon.

            I don’t know anything about Orthodox Jews other than they won’t touch a light switch on Saturday. And I only know that because I saw it on one of them there crime investigation type shows.


            I don’t like how you have to capitalize the first letter of the days of the week. Don’t know why I don’t like it; I just don’t. It bugs me.

  20. I don’t like how you have to capitalize the first letter of the days of the week. Don’t know why I don’t like it; I just don’t. It bugs me.

    My bourbon makes me hate it too. General, I propose we stop capitalizing the days of the week. Fuck ’em.

    1. Fuckin’ right man! Hell, if we have to capitalize monday why not Bourbon, huh?

      I think Bourbon is way more important than monday.

      I really hate wednesday. Man, I can’t spell that motherfucker for shit, and you have to capitalize it for spell-check to work. First, I’ll spell it wrong and have it fronted by a lowercase letter. Then, I’ll fix the spelling, but no capital letter, so it’s still fucking marked, ARRGHH. Next, I’ll think, “I know this day has some fucked up spelling, maybe I haven’t fixed it for realz.”

      Now, I’m on google lookin’ this shit up, and what do you fuckin know, I have it spelled right. Sooo, why is word telling me it’s wrong…

      OOOOH, goddamn I fucking forgot it’s supposed to be ‘Wenesday’ no ‘Wedsday’ no, howwabout ‘Wensday’, Really? That’s how people fucking say it!


      1. I always think “wed-ness-day” Then kill one of the s’s.

        Also, fried chicken.

        1. I tried that, but I’d always question myself on it. I think, “I swear it’s wed-nes-day, but maybe it’s really wend-es-day? Who knows? Nobody, that’s who… a real goddamn mystery…” Usually what begins this vicious cycle is that I will have it spelled right but the first letter is still lowercase. This leads to me questioning not only my spelling abilities but my competence as a human being in general. Or maybe spelling just isn’t my thing, ya know? Maybe I should really think of whether I want to be involved in any spelling related activities. After some introspection I’ll decide that I should just be a farmer. They don’t have to spell stoopid days right, or be mocked by Microsoft Word and its mysterious, and hyper-critical spelling/grammar checking software, right? Just goats and chickens and shit. Grow some corn, milk the chickens and that’s it. Man, the good life.

          1. Wednessday? Wenzday? Wensday? wensday? Fuck it. I’m farming.

            1. Hell yes, that’s me from now on. I’ll be up at 5 am tomorrow plantin’ seeds and shit.

  21. or ever had a single same-sex encounter that the child was aware of.

    So the study relied on children reporting on the sexuality of heir parents? What I they just thought their parents were, like, totally gay (but not in a homosexual way). You know the kids these days with their jargon.

    1. Shut up gaylord.

    1. What a crock of shit. How about we encourage kids to seek a profession right out of high school if they want. Maybe, give ’em a chance to work and see what the world is like before they decide to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on an education.

      And maybe, just maybe, some kids are bright enough to figure out that there’s a lot more value in learning how to fix shit than a $200k communications degree.

      1. A few good things about going into the Marines right out of high school :

        – after a tour in the USMC, if you choose to go to school you KNOW why you are in school

        – you get benefits to help pay for that school

        – you are more likely to go after a degree which will add value to your employability rather than simply fill a space on your resume

        …at least that was how it affected me.

        1. Yeah, do something, anything. Get out there and live a little before you decide what you want to do.

          Shit, you could work at McDonald’s and party your ass off every night, then decide to settle down and go to school. It’s a hell of a lot better that enrolling right out of high school, taking a shit load of loans and partying your ass off; only to go back to school years after you’ve dropped out.

    2. Wow that’s retarded.

    3. This is the most sinister thing I’ve heard all day. That’s like trying to “solve” low home ownership by encouraging people to buy houses with high interest rates and zero percent down with the hope of the house paying for itself regardless of conditions. I mean, if people pay more, they’ll value it more and be less likely to default, right? Nevermind that student loans are non-dischargeable and a degree’s non-transferable, what could go wrong?

      1. Debt! It solves everthing!!

  22. Good update/article on the status of the bitcoin.

    Looks like it’s stabilizing and still frustrating Chuck “Tits” Schumer.

  23. Breaking: North Dakotans vote to keep property taxes

    1. A “Yes” vote eliminates property taxes and forces the legislature to replace the lost revenue to cities, counties and school districts. A “No” vote keeps things the way they are in the state.

      I wonder if they were planning of replacing a bad tax with a worse one. A state sales tax or income tax, maybe?

      Otherwise, I can’t wrap my head around this.

      1. Don’t know for sure, but my thought is to compare the voting percentages for and against to the percentages of owners versus renters. I have run into many many dingbat renters who don’t think that they themselves are paying property taxes because they don’t see a separate bill.

        1. I’ve just perused some articles addressing the matter and it seems that property taxes in the state amount to roughly $800million and the state legislature would be mandated to make up the difference. Some people objected because they felt that property taxes were a local matter where it’s easier to influence your fate, but state taxes were too far removed from the tax payer. This, they argue, take power away from the towns and giving it to the capital.

          Reasonable objections to a good idea that was, perhaps, badly executed.

          1. Yes. That I can definitely see.

  24. Nike sneakers air meilleures mesure porte un technologies remarquables uniques, qui contient chaussures appr?ciables ? l’int?rieur de l’aspect du talon dans le environnement naturel introduit par la plantation barri?re. nike air max Quelques hommes mois a ?t? ?tabli par sugg?re du fond de roulement d’environ de son c?t? le plus flagrant. Nike d?m?nagement air max s?rieux d’habitude maintenant. En outre, ils sont constitu?s de artificielle et le type tissu et sera sans aucun doute fascination votre penchant. Ambiance Max 95 Faites-vous est souvent recherch? en ligne sph?re et il vous suffit de peut-?tre sans aucun doute se d?velopper en ?tonn? ? votre grand assortiment de chaussures de sport que vous pourriez poser vos paumes on.While dans la fonction que vous avez un impressionnant avide de r?alit? virtuelle de la question, avec juste une frappe de la souris, sera probablement une entreprise simple ? tr?bucher sur le mouvement de l’air Yr vente pr?c?dente, o? par vous se distingue des add-ons dans fous les co?ts r?duit la gravit? des sp?cifiquement exactement ce que vous attendez.; obtenir s’emparer de ces baskets pour revenir ? une saine diff?rente, beaucoup plus ramass? la vie style

    1. A goddamn Canadian trying to sell me sneakers! What has the world come to?

  25. The larger question remains unaddressed: Aren’t these studies stupid?

    The Reason Foundation should commission a study to definitively answer that question.

  26. I wonder how my bilingual, internationally travelled, soccer playing, musical, heterosexual 14 year old son, who last I heard intends to be a marine biologist, would be classified? His mom is straight, I visit but he lives with her, no one has ever gone out of their way to explain my life to him, and he has a gay aunt and one straight aunt in his town, with a cousin from each.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.