Insieme.

Marriage is not an entirely legal concept. It can’t neither be positioned in a field where there are no legal restraints or limits to what marriage may or may not be. Definitionwise the easier approach would be an objective legal dictionary statement. Alas, the definition does not completely denote the experience in itself.

Marriage has doubtlessly several connotations attached to it’s tail and causes a brainstorm that ends in various ramifications. Words like infidelity, procreation, offspring, heritage, partnership sprout randomly as the word in itself transforms into a philosophical bulk of concepts.

Whether the term is as complex as it seems or the society/the individual has rendered it to be so is a no-brainer. As the execution of the act of marriage requires human beings as active performants, surely the concepts derive from human rituals. As it is of human origin, marriage conceptually is a self-imposed restriction, a wov of devotion, an act of freedom, a choice and a manifestation of personal will. Although a need for being priveleged over one person (the partner) can be read as a possessive and bestial instinct, the fact that the affectionate also plays a key role in a healthy relationship that naturally is associated with long-term marriages is a proof that the bestiality has been reformed in some way.

What civilization and society impose upon the term marriage is a natural concern of the married couple. The look and the existence of other is obligatory in the process of perception of togetherness, a sort of daily auto-legitimization. A witness is also present in marriage rituals which tells us that instead of being an exclusive concern for only 2 people, that the marriage is bereft of any meaning if the society does not exist or does not experience what the marriage actually is.

Through this need to be legitimate in the eyes of others, following a