为什么不应该三个人结婚？

如果说两个人的婚姻代表了爱情的忠贞，那么三个人的婚姻又代表了什么呢？而你又能否接受呢？在巴西就有这样的实例哦！

As three Brazilians are legally joined as a 'thruple' it starts to look illiberal to insist that marriage must be between two people
当3个巴西人合法结婚成为“三人婚姻（thruple）”（从couple衍生而来，指三个人的婚姻体）时，坚持婚姻必须在2个人之间进行开始看起来有些狭隘了。

Three Brazilians in love have their nation up in arms over whether their relationship, now enshrined in a three-way marriage, is legal. The public notary who conducted their marriage says there's no reason the threesome – or "thruple", as the internet has charmingly labelled it – shouldn't enjoy the same kinds of rights imparted upon two people who get hitched. But traditionalists are not impressed: lawyer Regina Beatriz Tavares da Silva, of the Commission for the Rights of the Family, has it "absurd and totally illegal".
坠入爱河的三个巴西人曾引起他们国人的激烈反对，质疑他们这种关系的合法性，现在这3个人之间的婚姻关系已被正式公布。他们的婚姻公证人说，没有任何理由能够阻止这三个人的婚姻——或称“thruple”，互联网上给出的迷人称呼——享受到给予2个人结婚那样同等的权利。但是，传统主义者并不买账：家庭权利委员会的律师里贾纳.比阿特丽斯.塔瓦雷斯.达席尔瓦(Regina Beatriz Tavares da Silva)说，这是“荒谬的，而且完全是非法的”。

Speaking of absurd, shall we take a moment to consider traditional marriage? We do adore it: in the UK, just under half the population has chosen to pledge to love another person as long as they both shall live, or as long as they don't get divorced. And yet as we shoehorn ourselves into two-by-two formation, we're not that good at keeping our promises: as Helen Croydon has pointed out, breaking the boundaries of monogamy is far from unusual. Plenty of marriages have three people in them. They're just not legal ones.
谈起荒谬，我们是不是应该花一点时间来考虑一下传统的婚姻呢？我们确实喜欢这样：在英国，刚刚不到一半的人选择与另一个人结婚，这包括夫妇两个人都健在，或者他们没有离婚。然而当我们把自己放进两个、两个这样的婚姻形式时，我们并不擅长遵守我们的婚姻承诺：就像海伦.克罗伊登(Helen Croydon)指出的，打破一夫一妻制的界限并非不寻常。大量的婚姻中存在着三个人。只是他们是不合法的。

A good old-fashioned monogamous marriage works beautifully for some. But even the most successful marriages are special and unique and incredibly weird. For much as we have a sweet collective imagining of what a happy union entails, the reality is that they all deviate from the fantasy norm, pretty much from the time that the certificate is signed, the chicken is noshed and the bouquet is chucked. The government can dictate that two people should be in a marriage, but it can't legislate what will make them feel happy or stable or emotionally complete together. And if we accept that, as we do every time we allow anyone the freedom to make a decision about who they'll marry, and furthermore allow them the freedom to call each other by execrable pet names in public, then does it not begin to seem strange, just a bit, that we do allow the government to dictate how many people are allowed to pledge to be together forever? Perhaps even as strange as it is for government to dictate who can do it based on their gender?
传统的一夫一妻制对于有些人来说是完美的。但是，即使是最成功的婚姻也有其特殊、独特和怪异得令人难以置信的一面。我们会有很多对幸福的婚姻所具有的甜蜜的、总体上的想象，而现实情况是，人们都偏离了幻想中的标准，基本上从这个时候就开始了：婚姻证书签署、婚宴结束、婚礼的鲜花被丢弃。政府可以规定婚姻应该是在两个人之间，但它不能立法规定什么可以使他们感到快乐、婚姻稳定、或者相爱一生。如果我们可以接受，就像每次我们所做的那样，允许任何人自由地决定他们会与谁结婚，并且更进一步，给予他们公开用讨厌的宠物名字来称呼对方的自由，那么我们允许政府来规定多少人可以结婚，是不是开始看起来有点奇怪呢？可能就跟由政府根据性别来决定谁可以结婚一样奇怪吧？

This is not about the advocacy of patriarchal polygamy that regards wives as unequal to, or property of, their husbands. But if three, or four, or 17 people want to marry each other simultaneously and equally,