World’s First Three-Gay Marriage

by Daily Mail
March 6, 2015

Three gay men have tied the knot in what is thought to be the world’s first three-way same-sex marriage.

Happy newlyweds Joke, 29, Bell, 21 and Art, 26, took the plunge on Valentine’s Day after exchanging their vows in a fairy-tale ceremony at their home in Uthai Thani Province, Thailand.

The three blushing grooms are thought to be the world’s only wedded male threesome and have since become internet sensations after photos from their big day went viral.

In what they described as the happiest day of their lives, the three men were suited and booted for the ceremony in which they exchanged rings after walking down the aisle.

Bell, From Phitsanulok Province, said: ‘I think we are first three-way same sex males to have a wedding, possibly in the world.

‘Some people may not agree and are probably amazed by our decision, but we believe many people do understand and accept our choice. Love is love, after all.’

62 Comments - what are your thoughts?

  • Camelia says:

    What i do not realize is in truth how you’re no longer actually much more smartly-appreciated than you might be now. You are so intelligent. You realize therefore significantly when it comes to this subject, produced me individually believe it from so many various angles. Its like men and women are not fascinated until it is one thing to do with Lady gaga! Your individual stuffs excellent. At all times take care of it up!

  • Pilgrim says:

    Next week we’ll hear about the first man/goat/chicken marriage.

    1. EveryoneIsEqual says:

      Ah… the classic ‘slippery slope’ fallacy… Since only the first member of that list can understand or sign a legally binding contract to become married, I think chickens everywhere are safe.

      1. O. Ryan Faust says:

        “Slippery slope” is not a ‘fallacy’, it’s a principle. Ad hominem is a fallacy, ad populem is a fallacy, ‘slippery slope’ is an exiom, thus a principle, proven by the fact that this marriage of 3 follows on the heels of same-sex marriage.

  • Harold says:

    And morally sick is morally sick after all!

  • Keen Kirk KuntMan says:

    I still think these 3 are confused & lost souls…But, this “marriage” is not recognized by the Govt. of Thailand:

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/03/05/worlds-first-three-way-gay-marriage-takes-place-in-thailand/

    1. EveryoneIsEqual says:

      That’s quite interesting, thank you for looking that up. I find it a bit worrisome that this site didn’t mention that, acting as if such unions were already a fait accomplit in parts of the world… Makes one wonder about the level of their reporting, honestly…

  • Morgan23 says:

    How far are we now from Polygamous marriages? This is a precident for that. I am NOT looking back at this Sodom-Gamoorah!

  • Paul Kalmanek says:

    Lust is Lust.

  • keepyourpower says:

    It is not love…it is lust.

  • Charity says:

    Sure, this happened in Thailand, so it should not concern us in America. Have you seen the tv series “Sister Wives” here in America? It is 5 women married to one man, in Utah. I never see any protests about this show. The disgusting show “Modern Family” not only has 2 men married, they also adopted a child! No one protests that show, either. In fact, it is one of the most popular sitcoms on tv in America. Many Americans witnessed a cowpoke movie where the male cowboys poked each other on a broke back mountain. I am sure we are not far off from a sitcom of a woman humping her dog, a show of a man screwing his goat, another show of a pedophile and a consenting 6 year old boy and the funny things that occur in their lives. Thailand is notorious, universally, for trafficking of their children – mostly men coming from another country to secure a male child to rape. Over there, it is the status quo. The US is rapidly becoming the next sleazy country to wallow in the cesspool of perverted sex. In Florida, there is a bill being considered that has the trannies angry. The bill is about having an ID to use the correct gender restroom. Of course, this bill is stupid and wont pass, but the trannies are already crying foul. They believe if they went to all the trouble of mutilating their bodies, they should be able to use the bathroom meant for their new sexual identity. I believe that you can cut off your penis, get fake boobs and permanent make-up on the face, it does NOT make you a woman. You are a man with a mutilated body and cosmetic face, that’s all it is. Homosexuality is about one gender having sex with another of the same gender. This can be done in private, behind closed doors. The problems arise when the perverts want to make sure that the rest of the world is in on it, too. Shut up, close your door and have at it, just keep it to yourself. I REALLY don’t want to know.

    1. EveryoneIsEqual says:

      I am genuinely curious, was your username chosen to be deliberately ironic, or does your Charity(one of the best virtues, in my opinion) simply not extend to those who are too different from you?
      I completely agree that American ‘reality’ TV has become a ‘race to the bottom’ with shows like ‘Sister Wives’, “Honey Boo Boo’ and ‘Duck Dynasty’ competing to be the most shocking and controversial. Unfortunately, humanity’s penchant for morbid curiosity will keep such shows profitable.Modern Family, on the other hand, is so popular, in large part because it highlights both the similarities and the differences among all its different characters. On that note, I would recommend that if you watch just one episode, you find one entitled 15 Percent, from Season 1, it is both a great episode on its own, and perhaps the one that most pertains to your point of view.
      I am not sure I understand how 2 adults who love, care for and want to commit to each other is any more making sure “that the rest of the world is in on it, too” just because the wedding happens to be between 2 people of the same gender instead of the opposite gender?
      Ironically, I think most transgenders would agree with you, at least conceptually, that it is not the penis or lack thereof that defines whether a person is male or female, but it is a feeling inside them that has always been in misalignment with their external genitalia. I doubt they would use the same words you do, ‘mutilate’ and so on, but your concept is not so dissimilar.

      1. Charity says:

        it is my name. I extend no charity to anyone who thinks their private sexual fetish should be socially acceptable in a decent society.

        1. EveryoneIsEqual says:

          But who defines the terms ‘fetish’ (as opposed to gender identity, which is a more accurate description of homosexuality) and ‘decent society’?

    2. grama18 says:

      My Protest — I will not watch it ! AND the station that carries it will never be watched. and the company’s that advertise their products will not be purchased. ANY time I find something offensive I do not have to participate in any way.. THAT’s my Protest.

      1. EveryoneIsEqual says:

        I completely support your right not to watch things you don’t want to, and I hate to point out a logistical problem with your protest, but I am curious how you will be sure you are adequately boycotting the products which advertise on the offending channel / program if you don’t watch?

  • ken29 says:

    Yeah! I’d been wondering how long it would take for things like this. None of the court rulings have addressed the question of defining marriage. All they have done is strike down previously existing definitions.
    If not one man and one woman, then what? Any number of humans (or possibly mammals) of whatever biological composition (or possibly orientation)?
    In the past most states have had restrictions to maintain genetic diversity in reproduction. Do those still apply? They wouldn’t have any significance in a homosexual marriage. Can a man now marry his son (or daughter)? I suppose there are other characteristics formerly associated with marriage which are in limbo now that we are finding out what it can’t be.

    1. EveryoneIsEqual says:

      From your comments below, I was surprised to find you taken in by the ‘slippery slope’ fallacy. Of course the legal ramifications of a marriage necessitate that all participants be of legal age (and mental capacity, in the case of your hypothetical mammals). As far as legalizing polygamy in the U.S. , that is far more likely to be challenged by a heterosexual set of individuals.

  • EveryoneIsEqual says:

    Wow… such vitriol… Did anyone notice that this ‘story’ took place in Thailand, and therefore has nothing to do with the current struggle for marriage equality in the U.S. ?

    1. Keen Kirk KuntMan says:

      Don’t fret, Lib-Boy….it’ll be here before you know it…& How can it not?…Once you let 2 men marry, the game is over & all manner of sexual perversions will be allowed & sanctioned, promoted & taxpayer funded by the Govt…..see below:

      http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm_2012/

      1. EveryoneIsEqual says:

        Please refrain from name calling.
        Your link to a clearly non-objective pamphlet which holds forth all of the ‘horrible’ things that have happened in Massachusetts ostensibly as a result of the granting of marriage equality in that progressive state, makes no mention of any other ‘perversions’ that are ‘sanctioned, promoted and taxpayer funded’. That they disagree with marriage equality is obvious, since they never fail to place marriage in quotes. Most of the “horrible” things involving the media, education and family law are natural extensions of the need to allow for greater tolerance and flexibility, and not really “horrible” at all, I think they probably simply wanted a longer list?

        1. Keen Kirk KuntMan says:

          What other perversions, besides abortion & the LGBT darkness are taxpayer funded?….Is is right to use taxpayer money to allow Homo groups into schools, under the guise of “bullying’ to promote their agenda?….Many times without the parents being informed!….& what is that agenda?…it has NOTHING to do with “rights”, or “tolerance”, or “equality”…It is about seeking approval & crushing anyone who does not give it…The God-given rights of Christians & others repulsed by their “lifestyles” are being trampled more & more everyday…People don’t want to hear this, but In a truly free society, if one owns private property or a business, they should be free to serve who they want, hire who they want, rent to whom they want & not have to explain themselves

          1. EveryoneIsEqual says:

            Incidentally, abortion appeared nowhere in the link you provided, and is a separate conversation.So you don’t believe that young people in the majority (whether that is developing sexual identity, body type, economic status or any of a number of other categories) bully those who are different than themselves? Is your point of view, then, that your right to not be ‘repulsed’ (though unless they are violating public indecency laws, just like a heterosexual couple can, that repulsion seems to originate from little more than your own mental images) is more important than someone else’s right not to be harrassed or shamed? As far as private property, I agree, you don’t have to explain who you do or do not invite in, but once you contract to do business with (or rent to) the public, you are giving up the right to discriminate, in the same sense that there are no longer ‘white-only’ bakeries, auto shops, subdivisions and grocery stores. Finally, I feel it is worth noting that, in the United States at least, the rights of citizens are not ‘God-given’, they arise from our founding documents and the laws derived therefrom.

        2. Keen Kirk KuntMan says:

          http://illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/gender-confused-students-and-revolution/

          From this link:

          Fifty years ago, who would have predicted that God would place kindergarten teachers and wedding florists and cake-bakers on the frontline of the cultural war for truth about sexuality and marriage? All believers should be prepared to answer when God calls, and other believers should come alongside them during their trials. We look with admiration at the costs of discipleship for men like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and then when God puts a trial before us, we rationalize taking the path of least resistance. We should be ashamed.

          Remember when sexual anarchists told us all they wanted was to be left alone to do whatever it is they do in their bedrooms? Remember when they claimed that their private actions would have no affect on the culture?

          Initially their claims seemed believable because all they asked was that society tolerate (i.e., put up with) their private sexual peccadillos. Then they asked for approval of them. Then they demanded celebration and began marching down Main Street in costumes that should have stayed in their closets in their bedrooms.

          Then they transmogrified non-marital unions into unions legally recognized as “marriage.”

          Then couples whose erotic activities are inherently non-reproductive started acquiring children—acquisitions that they view as “rights.” They even demanded that laws be changed so that they could acquire children and that any organization that believes children have a right to a mother and father be shut down.

          They then went for citizens’ right to assemble by going after the Boy Scouts.

          Then they came into our public schools, including our elementary schools, to introduce malleable minds and kind hearts to positive images of a phenomenon that God abhors, teaching children that Leftist moral beliefs are facts and conservative moral beliefs are hatred.

          Then they fought to compel people of faith to violate their commitments to God by using their God-given gifts in the service of celebrations that God abhors.

          And now they seek a linguistic revolution. They’re coming for our pronouns.

          No stone unturned, no aspect of life untouched by the sullied hand of pagan sexuality unrestrained.

          The movement to normalize homoeroticism and gender confusion is the most pressing issue of the day. Leaders in the church, leaders in academia, and leaders in government who don’t understand this or who don’t want to address it need to get out of the way and let those who do lead.

        3. Keen Kirk KuntMan says:

          The following words are from longtime homosexual activist, Paul Varnell, who passed away on Dec. 12th 2011:

          “The LGBT movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people’s view of homosexuality”

          And I might add: To crush & silence anyone who does not agree that their “lifestyles” are natural, healthy & beneficial to society!

          I urge all to stand fast to God’s Word & Truth on this issue that is manifested in Natural & Divine Law no matter what external pressures you may experience!

          1. EveryoneIsEqual says:

            I took a quick glance at the full text from which you quote, and I find it strange that an individual who was a professional writer, and one who likely knew that his material would be taken out of context; as this was, didn’t add one simple word… “is not (only) a civil rights movement’. In the article, he was addressing his perception that the fundamental obstacle to equal treatment is a moral objection, sometimes based in a flawed reading of the Bible, and sometimes more amorphous that it is somehow ‘just wrong’. The distinction he is making is the fact that the Civil Rights movement of the ’60s didn’t have a moral component. No one thought that African Americans were fundamentally immoral, racism is a different root cause for the fear and oppression that characterized the resistance to equal treatment.

        4. Keen Kirk KuntMan says:

          I do not care what consenting adults do in their private lives….But when the govt, uses taxpayer money to sanction, promote & fund it, while trampling the God-given rights of others, that is when I protest & YES!!….I call these things very HORRIBLE!!!

        5. Keen Kirk KuntMan says:

          The reason marriage is in quotes is because it was ILLEGALLY shoved thru the Mass. Legislature breaking a few parliamentary rules….It never should have passed…But, the the HOMO-Fascists never care about the means, only the ends!!!

        6. Keen Kirk KuntMan says:

          The reason marriage is in quotes is because it was shoved thru the MASS. Legislature ILLEGALLY with several parliamentary rules being broken….But, then The HOMO-Fascists care only about the ends & not the means in their maniacal crusade to turn darkness into Light!

          1. EveryoneIsEqual says:

            I’m sorry, I looked, but the only reference I could find about parlimentary rules and the passage of Massachusetts’ law was that the Supreme Court issued an advisory finding that the amendment that the Legislature was trying to rush through would almost certainly be found unconstitutional… Is that what you are referring to? Again, I would ask that you keep our dialogue civil… ‘HOMO-Fascists’, etc, does nothing to advance your cause, only reveals your emotional investment in the situation.

    2. Keen Kirk KuntMan says:

      Someone sent me this link….Actually, these homo’s union is not sanctioned by the state….As a Libertarian, I think that is great that they came together & do not need the state’s approval….But, it is probably coming soon!

      http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/03/05/worlds-first-three-way-gay-marriage-takes-place-in-thailand/

  • joe says:

    That seems like a very queer situation to me.

  • The redhawk says:

    Oh.. and I figured that the first THREE gay marriage would have been among the Pansy Potus, Daffy Durbin and Sow Hilderbeast…. Oh well…

  • Keen Kirk KuntMan says:

    This is not surprising, as a matter of fact I’ve been expecting it sooner…Once you allow homo marriage, there are no more barriers, no more standards, sooner or later anything goes & will…..Incestual marriages, pedophile marriages, etc…

    As the old adage goes, “Without God, all things are permissible”

    1. EveryoneIsEqual says:

      How is that different from the one that says “With God, all things are possible”? Seems that wouldn’t rule out what you are objecting to either

      1. ken29 says:

        EveryoneIsEqual: Actually your moniker is part of the problem. It’s nonsense! The consequence of the misinterpretation of an early condensation of “equally free and independent”. In reality everyone is different, sort of like snowflakes, and it is that diversity that makes the system work, even as poorly as it often does.
        Both versions are about equally implausible.

        1. EveryoneIsEqual says:

          equal: like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the same rank, ability, merit, etc.:

          same: identical with what is about to be or has just been mentioned

          There is no reason to assume that I believe everyone is ‘the same’, only that they are ‘equal’
          And I agree with you about both of those adages being equally implausible. 🙂

          1. ken29 says:

            And my point is that they are not alike in quantity, degree, value, etc. of the same rank, ability, merit, etc., but uniquely unalike in all those ways, thus unequal. Or perhaps unequal in all those ways and thus unalike, 🙂 Either way our society gets into a lot of absurd difficulties by embracing the notion that everyone is equal (“All men are created equal”).

          2. EveryoneIsEqual says:

            Your argument then, is that one of the most enduring and liberating phrases to have originated in America is an unworthy goal to strive for? That instead of embracing the idea that we all have something unique to contribute we should group people into ‘better’ and ‘worse’ or ‘worthy’ and ‘less worthy’? I can’t believe that’s what you mean; I think we are trying to say the same thing, we just are looking at it two different ways.

          3. ken29 says:

            Well, sort of. I assert that the phrase “All men are created equal” was never meant to imply equality as it has recently been interpreted, It was meant to convey the more important notion that “all men are born equally free and independent”, and hence able to embrace “the idea that the idea that we all have something unique (In contrast to equal) to contribute. Better or worse is simple reality (not judgmental), Not worthy or less worthy, just different. I think the original form was more enduring and liberating. The revised version promotes conformity and sameness, penalizing those who have more and better to contribute.

          4. EveryoneIsEqual says:

            If memory serves, the expanded version you put forth ‘equally free and independent’ was included in one or more states’ constitutions? Apparently there was quite a bit of back and forth over the simpler phrase being included in the Declaration, chief among them (one hopes) being the irony of writing such a thing at a time when slavery was still rampant. I applaud your line of reasoning, though I would like to think that most adults are sophisticated enough to understand that the more concise ‘all men are created equal’ doesn’t mean that everyone has to be the same, it certainly hasn’t damped the amazing variety and vibrancy of America’s history 🙂 I think the biggest concern I have is that as soon as you ‘better’ or ‘worse’ are almost always going to be value judgements, and the people who get to decide which things are in which category are human and therefore may be flawed.

      2. Keen Kirk KuntMan says:

        In the latter phrase, it is understood that, ALL THINGS IN TUNE WITH GOD’S WILL are possible!!

        In the earlier phrase, it is understood that ALL MANNER OF DARKNESS is allowed without God….Capish?

        1. EveryoneIsEqual says:

          Of course I understand that you draw that distinction, I just find that many homilies require that sort of preconceived conclusion, which rather negates their general applicability, don’t you think?

          1. Keen Kirk KuntMan says:

            Not at all!!!

          2. EveryoneIsEqual says:

            My point is that it is the underlying assumption that gives relevance to the adage, not the adage itself… if you don’t read ‘with God all things are possible’ with the definition you already have in mind, then one could logically reach the conclusion that it supports any manner of depravity.

          3. Harold says:

            Spoiled baloneyyyyyy!

          4. EveryoneIsEqual says:

            Not sure I see much value in the contribution of ‘spoiled baloneyyyyyy’

  • David in MA says:

    Sick B astards!

  • Guest says:

    I’ll pray for you all and wish you well while you endure the effects of Hell for all eternity!

  • teaman says:

    When Pandora’s Box is open, the perverted sinful actions of mankind get’s worse by the day!

  • Greg137 says:

    This is what happens when people start redefining marriage.. There is no clear concrete definition besides One man one woman… Because that is the union by which children are born to produce productive members of society… there are a thousand bogus definitions to marriage.. Gays want gay ,marriage so they can legalize pedophilia.. The reason we oppose gay marriage is to protect the children… Next the pedophiles will want their own definition and the LGBT will continue to push until children are sex toys… Gay also have zero respect for people who hold a different view than themselves.. They are selfish and they play a false victim card..

    1. Morgan23 says:

      EXACTLY!

  • GENE says:

    freaks and fags getting freakier and sicker!!! The Lord knew what he was doing when they could not replicate!!

    1. The redhawk says:

      and they are all part of Reid’s Dummie C rats group!!

    2. EveryoneIsEqual says:

      And yet their numbers are never depleted, so He must always be making more?

  • Ned says:

    Where does this exist in the creation? No where but in the sick lives of the human species. So sad!

  • wcgraybill says:

    get rid of all queers, send all queers to some island and let them live the best they can.

    1. The redhawk says:

      Send them to IRAN… and No one will ever be heard of then again… and why not send our “PANSY POTUS” so that he’d be with them???

      1. dick1935 says:

        Along with his she male too. Its the fornicators in charge! :o((

        1. The redhawk says:

          BUT she mate pees Standing up , while less than manly pansy potus squats to pee, will she be disqualified???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Keep the Fake News Media in check.

Don’t let the MSM censor your news as America becomes Great Again. Over 500,000 Americans receive our daily dose of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness along with Breaking News direct to their inbox—and you can too. Sign up to receive news and views from The 1776Coalition!

We know how important your privacy is and your information is SAFE with us. We’ll never sell
your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time directly from your inbox.
View our full privacy policy.