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, why should they not be granted the same status as two people who want to become a legal family? Without reverting to religious arguments, or logistical ones (does Ikea manufacture a big enough bed to accommodate this union?), it begins to feel a bit illiberal. 这不是在倡导家长式的一夫多妻制,在那种形式下妻子们与她们的丈夫处于不平等地位,或者只是属于丈夫的财产。但是,如果3个、4个、或者17个人想同时、等同地与每个人结婚,为什么他们不能像想组成合法家庭的2个人那样,得到同样的对待呢?不必回到宗教的论点,或者后勤方面(宜家可以制造一个足够大的床,可以容纳这些一起结婚的人吗?),婚姻必须是2个人的想法开始令人感到有点狭隘了。

Is it possible that if we allowed more people to marry simultaneously that more marriages might be successful? Fewer breakups over infidelity might occur, for example, if those who found themselves in love with more than one person didn't have to choose or conceal their feelings. And relaxing the expectation that one partner should fulfil all of one's needs – good sex, complementary taste in television and shared preference for dogs over cats may just be too much to ask for – might mean that people who opt for a portfolio of other halves (or thirds) could outdo the rest of us in happiness. 如果我们允许更多的人同时结婚,那么有没有可能会有更多成功的婚姻呢?例如,如果那些发现自己爱上了一个以上的人不必作出选择,也不必隐瞒自己的感情,那么因为不忠而分手的情况可能会更少发生。并且减少一个人对婚姻伙伴应该满足自己需要的期望——这些需要包括:良好的性生活、对电视节目品味的互补性,而对狗的共同爱好要多过猫就可能要求得太多了——可能意味着,选择另外两个人(或三个人)的组合可能会比我们其余的人更幸福。 Legalisation wouldn't send stampedes of people to the registry office in five-aside squads; for many of us, monogamy does feel the most comfortable option, whether it's because our brains aren't wired to love more than one person or because the prospect of making multiple people happy is too complex. But three's not a crowd for everyone. And as long as everyone is entering a marriage equally, as long as everyone is really going to make an effort to be open and honest to everyone else, it's probably not the government's job to tell them how many of them there should be. 多人婚姻的合法化不会导致人们5人一组蜂拥而至婚姻登记处,对于我们很多人来说,一夫一妻制确实是令人感到最愉快的选择,不管是因为我们的大脑没有被设置为可以爱上不止一个人,还是因为让多个人得到快乐的前景太复杂了。不过对大家来说,三个人还不算太多。只要每个人平等地迈入婚姻殿堂,只要每个人真得作出努力,对其他的每个人公开而且诚实,那么告诉人们婚姻中应该有几个人存在可能就不是政府的工作了。




  • John不太了解意大利菜,他决定先致电那个餐厅询问意大利粉及牛排的分类和煮法。

  • 吃货当道。吃货,不是胖子的代名词,不带贬义色彩,而是“美食控”,是十足的生活爱好者。

  • 学习英语的人都希望自己能说一口地道的英语。但是有没有人告诉过你,想要听起来像老外一样地 道,你需要动词短语的帮助?

  • 你的英语有多实用呢?在碰上外国人的时候,能真正地和老外无障碍地沟通吗?

  • 人人都想升职,但不是人人都知道如何让老板心甘情愿地升你的职。职业阶梯的顶端回报丰厚,但你要一步一步往上爬。

  • 谈判的确是较高段位的商务活动。如果你有机会参与谈判,而且还是跟国外公司谈判,恭喜你,你获得了一个很好的证明自己的机会!


live chat