SCOTUS divided over SSM

[The Rabbi]

Gays can and have married in all 50 states.

This is about SSM, not gay marriage.

What's the difference between Same Sex Marriage (SSM) and Gay Marriage?

Seriously?

Yes. Enlighten me, what is the difference between Same Sex Marriage (SSM) and Gay Marriage?

There is no such thing as "gay marriage."

If you say that 3 times and click your heals you'll be back home in the 50s.

Please post the application for marriage license from any locality in the US that asks "sexual preference." Go aheah, I'll wait.

 

[RKMBrown]

You keep stating "the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right." As if that means something. It doesn't mean a thing. It just makes you sound ... really odd.

I know we disagree vehemently on this issue, but FYI danielpalos is a complete idiot, one of those guys who spouts stuff just to make himself seem smart."

He's either really really dumb, or a troll.

I don't disagree with you vehemently. Matter of fact just 8years back I held your opinion to the letter. My opinion changed.

For example, would you be ok with states being able to decide on the issue of Jim Crow laws? If no where would you have stood on that issue back in the 60s? Times change.

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

The good is establishing liberty for gays. Forcing gays to move to gay friendly states that is fine for something like say growing and smoking weed, but it's not fine IMO for basic fundamental liberties like marriage.

"Liberty"?? You're kidding, right? LAst I checked gays had exactly the same amount of liberty as anyone else here. Maybe more actually.

Nope. Not kidding. Liberty for men to marry men and women to marry women, get used to it.

 

[RKMBrown]

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

Jim Crow was government using the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws use the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws provide certain legal protections in the form of an array of cash and prizes to married people. But those cash and prizes are withheld from one group of married people for no other reason than that group is hated.

"We've always oppressed these people" has been the excuse of every bigot for continuing the practice in the name of "tradition", whether that tradition be slavery or Jim Crow or anti-SSM.

Since no rational reason can be provided for withholding equal protection of the laws for this group, then that equal protection must be finally established. It is their right, and you cannot continue to vote away rights just because you have been allowed to do so until now. No more than you can vote in Jim Crow laws just because you were allowed to do so in the past.

blahblah Yea yeah, gays are really Negroes from the 1960s yeah yeah. Same ole argument. Same ole fail.

Yeah those negroes should be put back in their place along with the fags huh? ROLLS EYES

You understgand that the equation of "gays=Negroes c.1960" is simply wrong for any number of reasons, right?

Civil rights irregardless of GENDER, SKIN COLOR, OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE. Get used to it.

 

[The Rabbi]

I know we disagree vehemently on this issue, but FYI danielpalos is a complete idiot, one of those guys who spouts stuff just to make himself seem smart."

He's either really really dumb, or a troll.

I don't disagree with you vehemently. Matter of fact just 8years back I held your opinion to the letter. My opinion changed.

For example, would you be ok with states being able to decide on the issue of Jim Crow laws? If no where would you have stood on that issue back in the 60s? Times change.

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

The good is establishing liberty for gays. Forcing gays to move to gay friendly states that is fine for something like say growing and smoking weed, but it's not fine IMO for basic fundamental liberties like marriage.

"Liberty"?? You're kidding, right? LAst I checked gays had exactly the same amount of liberty as anyone else here. Maybe more actually.

Nope. Not kidding. Liberty for men to marry men and women to marry women, get used to it.

You understand that has nothing to do with gays, right?

 

[The Rabbi]

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

Jim Crow was government using the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws use the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws provide certain legal protections in the form of an array of cash and prizes to married people. But those cash and prizes are withheld from one group of married people for no other reason than that group is hated.

"We've always oppressed these people" has been the excuse of every bigot for continuing the practice in the name of "tradition", whether that tradition be slavery or Jim Crow or anti-SSM.

Since no rational reason can be provided for withholding equal protection of the laws for this group, then that equal protection must be finally established. It is their right, and you cannot continue to vote away rights just because you have been allowed to do so until now. No more than you can vote in Jim Crow laws just because you were allowed to do so in the past.

blahblah Yea yeah, gays are really Negroes from the 1960s yeah yeah. Same ole argument. Same ole fail.

Yeah those negroes should be put back in their place along with the fags huh? ROLLS EYES

You understgand that the equation of "gays=Negroes c.1960" is simply wrong for any number of reasons, right?

Civil rights irregardless of GENDER, SKIN COLOR, OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE. Get used to it.

You understand that repeating the same failed talking point over and over marks you as a loser, right?

 

[Skylar]

Jim Crow was government using the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws use the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws provide certain legal protections in the form of an array of cash and prizes to married people. But those cash and prizes are withheld from one group of married people for no other reason than that group is hated.

"We've always oppressed these people" has been the excuse of every bigot for continuing the practice in the name of "tradition", whether that tradition be slavery or Jim Crow or anti-SSM.

Since no rational reason can be provided for withholding equal protection of the laws for this group, then that equal protection must be finally established. It is their right, and you cannot continue to vote away rights just because you have been allowed to do so until now. No more than you can vote in Jim Crow laws just because you were allowed to do so in the past.

blahblah Yea yeah, gays are really Negroes from the 1960s yeah yeah. Same ole argument. Same ole fail.

Yeah those negroes should be put back in their place along with the fags huh? ROLLS EYES

You understgand that the equation of "gays=Negroes c.1960" is simply wrong for any number of reasons, right?

Civil rights irregardless of GENDER, SKIN COLOR, OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE. Get used to it.

You understand that repeating the same failed talking point over and over marks you as a loser, right?

Um, 'failed'? The USSC itself cited 4 different race based discrimination cases between Windsor v. US and Romer v. Evans. And found in favor of gays both times, using the race based cases to describe how discrimination against gays was invalid.

But you know better than the USSC on which USSC cases are relevant?

Laughing....nope.

 

[RKMBrown]

Jim Crow was government using the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws use the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws provide certain legal protections in the form of an array of cash and prizes to married people. But those cash and prizes are withheld from one group of married people for no other reason than that group is hated.

"We've always oppressed these people" has been the excuse of every bigot for continuing the practice in the name of "tradition", whether that tradition be slavery or Jim Crow or anti-SSM.

Since no rational reason can be provided for withholding equal protection of the laws for this group, then that equal protection must be finally established. It is their right, and you cannot continue to vote away rights just because you have been allowed to do so until now. No more than you can vote in Jim Crow laws just because you were allowed to do so in the past.

blahblah Yea yeah, gays are really Negroes from the 1960s yeah yeah. Same ole argument. Same ole fail.

Yeah those negroes should be put back in their place along with the fags huh? ROLLS EYES

You understgand that the equation of "gays=Negroes c.1960" is simply wrong for any number of reasons, right?

Civil rights irregardless of GENDER, SKIN COLOR, OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE. Get used to it.

You understand that repeating the same failed talking point over and over marks you as a loser, right?

Failed? ROFL Your kind is done. It's over you failed. Gays are gonna be getting married in your home town, moving in next door to you. Get used to it.

 

[Pop23]

I know we disagree vehemently on this issue, but FYI danielpalos is a complete idiot, one of those guys who spouts stuff just to make himself seem smart."

He's either really really dumb, or a troll.

I don't disagree with you vehemently. Matter of fact just 8years back I held your opinion to the letter. My opinion changed.

For example, would you be ok with states being able to decide on the issue of Jim Crow laws? If no where would you have stood on that issue back in the 60s? Times change.

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

The good is establishing liberty for gays. Forcing gays to move to gay friendly states that is fine for something like say growing and smoking weed, but it's not fine IMO for basic fundamental liberties like marriage.

"Liberty"?? You're kidding, right? LAst I checked gays had exactly the same amount of liberty as anyone else here. Maybe more actually.

Nope. Not kidding. Liberty for men to marry men and women to marry women, get used to it.

And sibling to marry sibling Right?

If not, why not?

Remember ( cuz I don't want Clayton, Fakey and WW getting all pissed off), there is no procreation qualification to obtain a marriage license.

Or are you gonna run again without answering simple questions?

 

[Pop23]

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

Jim Crow was government using the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws use the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws provide certain legal protections in the form of an array of cash and prizes to married people. But those cash and prizes are withheld from one group of married people for no other reason than that group is hated.

"We've always oppressed these people" has been the excuse of every bigot for continuing the practice in the name of "tradition", whether that tradition be slavery or Jim Crow or anti-SSM.

Since no rational reason can be provided for withholding equal protection of the laws for this group, then that equal protection must be finally established. It is their right, and you cannot continue to vote away rights just because you have been allowed to do so until now. No more than you can vote in Jim Crow laws just because you were allowed to do so in the past.

blahblah Yea yeah, gays are really Negroes from the 1960s yeah yeah. Same ole argument. Same ole fail.

Yeah those negroes should be put back in their place along with the fags huh? ROLLS EYES

You understgand that the equation of "gays=Negroes c.1960" is simply wrong for any number of reasons, right?

Civil rights irregardless of GENDER, SKIN COLOR, OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE. Get used to it.

= siblings

 

[The Rabbi]

blahblah Yea yeah, gays are really Negroes from the 1960s yeah yeah. Same ole argument. Same ole fail.

Yeah those negroes should be put back in their place along with the fags huh? ROLLS EYES

You understgand that the equation of "gays=Negroes c.1960" is simply wrong for any number of reasons, right?

Civil rights irregardless of GENDER, SKIN COLOR, OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE. Get used to it.

You understand that repeating the same failed talking point over and over marks you as a loser, right?

Failed? ROFL Your kind is done. It's over you failed. Gays are gonna be getting married in your home town, moving in next door to you. Get used to it.

Stamping your little foot and throwing a temper tantrum isnt impressing anyone.

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't disagree with you vehemently. Matter of fact just 8years back I held your opinion to the letter. My opinion changed.

For example, would you be ok with states being able to decide on the issue of Jim Crow laws? If no where would you have stood on that issue back in the 60s? Times change.

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

The good is establishing liberty for gays. Forcing gays to move to gay friendly states that is fine for something like say growing and smoking weed, but it's not fine IMO for basic fundamental liberties like marriage.

"Liberty"?? You're kidding, right? LAst I checked gays had exactly the same amount of liberty as anyone else here. Maybe more actually.

Nope. Not kidding. Liberty for men to marry men and women to marry women, get used to it.

And sibling to marry sibling Right?

If not, why not?

Remember ( cuz I don't want Clayton, Fakey and WW getting all pissed off), there is no procreation qualification to obtain a marriage license.

Or are you gonna run again without answering simple questions?

No. Because it's against the law for siblings to marry siblings, ya weirdo! Duh!! Does someone need to explain to you why siblings can't marry siblings? Or are you from Tennessee? (No offense to fine Tennesseans who don't have sex with their parents and siblings.)

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't disagree with you vehemently. Matter of fact just 8years back I held your opinion to the letter. My opinion changed.

For example, would you be ok with states being able to decide on the issue of Jim Crow laws? If no where would you have stood on that issue back in the 60s? Times change.

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

The good is establishing liberty for gays. Forcing gays to move to gay friendly states that is fine for something like say growing and smoking weed, but it's not fine IMO for basic fundamental liberties like marriage.

"Liberty"?? You're kidding, right? LAst I checked gays had exactly the same amount of liberty as anyone else here. Maybe more actually.

Nope. Not kidding. Liberty for men to marry men and women to marry women, get used to it.

And sibling to marry sibling Right?

If not, why not?

Remember ( cuz I don't want Clayton, Fakey and WW getting all pissed off), there is no procreation qualification to obtain a marriage license.

Or are you gonna run again without answering simple questions?

RMKBRown wont run. He isnt that smart. He will instead repost the same shit he's posted a dozen times. Because he isnt smart enough to think of new material.

 

[RKMBrown]

Jim Crow was government using the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws use the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws provide certain legal protections in the form of an array of cash and prizes to married people. But those cash and prizes are withheld from one group of married people for no other reason than that group is hated.

"We've always oppressed these people" has been the excuse of every bigot for continuing the practice in the name of "tradition", whether that tradition be slavery or Jim Crow or anti-SSM.

Since no rational reason can be provided for withholding equal protection of the laws for this group, then that equal protection must be finally established. It is their right, and you cannot continue to vote away rights just because you have been allowed to do so until now. No more than you can vote in Jim Crow laws just because you were allowed to do so in the past.

blahblah Yea yeah, gays are really Negroes from the 1960s yeah yeah. Same ole argument. Same ole fail.

Yeah those negroes should be put back in their place along with the fags huh? ROLLS EYES

You understgand that the equation of "gays=Negroes c.1960" is simply wrong for any number of reasons, right?

Civil rights irregardless of GENDER, SKIN COLOR, OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE. Get used to it.

= siblings

Yes even YOUR SISTER HAS CIVIL RIGHTS... DUH!!!

 

[The Rabbi]

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

The good is establishing liberty for gays. Forcing gays to move to gay friendly states that is fine for something like say growing and smoking weed, but it's not fine IMO for basic fundamental liberties like marriage.

"Liberty"?? You're kidding, right? LAst I checked gays had exactly the same amount of liberty as anyone else here. Maybe more actually.

Nope. Not kidding. Liberty for men to marry men and women to marry women, get used to it.

And sibling to marry sibling Right?

If not, why not?

Remember ( cuz I don't want Clayton, Fakey and WW getting all pissed off), there is no procreation qualification to obtain a marriage license.

Or are you gonna run again without answering simple questions?

No. Because it's against the law for siblings to marry siblings, ya weirdo! Duh!! Does someone need to explain to you why siblings can't marry siblings? Or are you from Tennessee? (No offense to fine Tennesseans who don't have sex with their parents and siblings.)

It was against the law for two men to marry too, duh. And I am a Tennessean, motormouth.

 

[RKMBrown]

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

The good is establishing liberty for gays. Forcing gays to move to gay friendly states that is fine for something like say growing and smoking weed, but it's not fine IMO for basic fundamental liberties like marriage.

"Liberty"?? You're kidding, right? LAst I checked gays had exactly the same amount of liberty as anyone else here. Maybe more actually.

Nope. Not kidding. Liberty for men to marry men and women to marry women, get used to it.

And sibling to marry sibling Right?

If not, why not?

Remember ( cuz I don't want Clayton, Fakey and WW getting all pissed off), there is no procreation qualification to obtain a marriage license.

Or are you gonna run again without answering simple questions?

RMKBRown wont run. He isnt that smart. He will instead repost the same shit he's posted a dozen times. Because he isnt smart enough to think of new material.

Why should I switch to the lies and bullshit you two spout, when the truth is simple?

 

[The Rabbi]

blahblah Yea yeah, gays are really Negroes from the 1960s yeah yeah. Same ole argument. Same ole fail.

Yeah those negroes should be put back in their place along with the fags huh? ROLLS EYES

You understgand that the equation of "gays=Negroes c.1960" is simply wrong for any number of reasons, right?

Civil rights irregardless of GENDER, SKIN COLOR, OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE. Get used to it.

= siblings

Yes even YOUR SISTER HAS CIVIL RIGHTS... DUH!!!

Strawman. No one said she didnt.
Does she have the right to marry her brother? Her sister?

 

[Skylar]

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

The good is establishing liberty for gays. Forcing gays to move to gay friendly states that is fine for something like say growing and smoking weed, but it's not fine IMO for basic fundamental liberties like marriage.

"Liberty"?? You're kidding, right? LAst I checked gays had exactly the same amount of liberty as anyone else here. Maybe more actually.

Nope. Not kidding. Liberty for men to marry men and women to marry women, get used to it.

And sibling to marry sibling Right?

If not, why not?

Remember ( cuz I don't want Clayton, Fakey and WW getting all pissed off), there is no procreation qualification to obtain a marriage license.

Or are you gonna run again without answering simple questions?

RMKBRown wont run. He isnt that smart. He will instead repost the same shit he's posted a dozen times. Because he isnt smart enough to think of new material.

Laughing.....says the guy that is *still* trying to tell us he knows better than the Supreme Court on which Supreme Court cases are relevant to gay rights.

Nope.

 

[RKMBrown]

The good is establishing liberty for gays. Forcing gays to move to gay friendly states that is fine for something like say growing and smoking weed, but it's not fine IMO for basic fundamental liberties like marriage.

"Liberty"?? You're kidding, right? LAst I checked gays had exactly the same amount of liberty as anyone else here. Maybe more actually.

Nope. Not kidding. Liberty for men to marry men and women to marry women, get used to it.

And sibling to marry sibling Right?

If not, why not?

Remember ( cuz I don't want Clayton, Fakey and WW getting all pissed off), there is no procreation qualification to obtain a marriage license.

Or are you gonna run again without answering simple questions?

No. Because it's against the law for siblings to marry siblings, ya weirdo! Duh!! Does someone need to explain to you why siblings can't marry siblings? Or are you from Tennessee? (No offense to fine Tennesseans who don't have sex with their parents and siblings.)

It was against the law for two men to marry too, duh. And I am a Tennessean, motormouth.

Well that explains alot. Yes, the law used to discriminate against gays. And soon it will not, get used to it.

 

[The Rabbi]

The good is establishing liberty for gays. Forcing gays to move to gay friendly states that is fine for something like say growing and smoking weed, but it's not fine IMO for basic fundamental liberties like marriage.

"Liberty"?? You're kidding, right? LAst I checked gays had exactly the same amount of liberty as anyone else here. Maybe more actually.

Nope. Not kidding. Liberty for men to marry men and women to marry women, get used to it.

And sibling to marry sibling Right?

If not, why not?

Remember ( cuz I don't want Clayton, Fakey and WW getting all pissed off), there is no procreation qualification to obtain a marriage license.

Or are you gonna run again without answering simple questions?

RMKBRown wont run. He isnt that smart. He will instead repost the same shit he's posted a dozen times. Because he isnt smart enough to think of new material.

Why should I switch to the lies and bullshit you two spout, when the truth is simple?

The good is establishing liberty for gays. Forcing gays to move to gay friendly states that is fine for something like say growing and smoking weed, but it's not fine IMO for basic fundamental liberties like marriage.

"Liberty"?? You're kidding, right? LAst I checked gays had exactly the same amount of liberty as anyone else here. Maybe more actually.

Nope. Not kidding. Liberty for men to marry men and women to marry women, get used to it.

And sibling to marry sibling Right?

If not, why not?

Remember ( cuz I don't want Clayton, Fakey and WW getting all pissed off), there is no procreation qualification to obtain a marriage license.

Or are you gonna run again without answering simple questions?

RMKBRown wont run. He isnt that smart. He will instead repost the same shit he's posted a dozen times. Because he isnt smart enough to think of new material.

Why should I switch to the lies and bullshit you two spout, when the truth is simple?

The only thing "simple" here is you, simpleton.
You cannot defend the ban on incestuous marriage and advocate for same sex marriage. You cannot therefore defend ANY limitation on marriage whatsoever. Congratulations, you have destroyed marriage as an institution.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Liberty"?? You're kidding, right? LAst I checked gays had exactly the same amount of liberty as anyone else here. Maybe more actually.

Nope. Not kidding. Liberty for men to marry men and women to marry women, get used to it.

And sibling to marry sibling Right?

If not, why not?

Remember ( cuz I don't want Clayton, Fakey and WW getting all pissed off), there is no procreation qualification to obtain a marriage license.

Or are you gonna run again without answering simple questions?

No. Because it's against the law for siblings to marry siblings, ya weirdo! Duh!! Does someone need to explain to you why siblings can't marry siblings? Or are you from Tennessee? (No offense to fine Tennesseans who don't have sex with their parents and siblings.)

It was against the law for two men to marry too, duh. And I am a Tennessean, motormouth.

Well that explains alot. Yes, the law used to discriminate against gays. And soon it will not, get used to it.

And is discriminates against brothers marrying sisters. And Muhammed marrying 3 14yr olds. And soon it wont. Get used to it.