ANSWERS: 34
  • Huge problem. Saw it on the "Love Boat" a few decades ago. Most people don't understand love and fall in and out of it so quickly. Marriage, traditionally, has been a life long commitment. But, so goes our disposable world and times.
  • I guess it is more true today, but it sure takes away from what I think marriage is and was intended to be.
  • it's correct to say that "as long as you both shall live. . ." some definition says "marriage is a sentence" _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Life sentence. .
  • Yes, I see a huge problem with it. People are paying thousands of dollars on a wedding that is really nothing more than an official excuse to get out of a long-term commitment. What's the point? Just live together and screw the way you were before the exhorbitant cost. +5
  • Why bother getting married if you don't mean it. In every marriage love ebbs and flows. If you quit the first time it ebbs, you miss all the good stuff to come.
  • they may have ment it like.. love is eternal even after death, so as long as you both shall love ..meaning you will keep your vows and love each other eternily forever and ever..even after death! is more romantic then the normal line "until you die" if you get me..lol but if i'm wrong then yeah i do hav a problem with it! true love lasts forever and if you marry someone you should try to keep your vows even after the love may go!
  • Yes, I see a huge problem with that. They might just as well of said until divorce do you part!
  • Yes, i'm a advocate of outlawing divorce, because marriage should be a lifelong commitment, not something you just do on a whim and give up on years later.
  • No marriage is a contract and if both agree on the contract then that's their business. +3 Another issue I have with all these people saying it's wrong is that not all marriages say till death do you part only the Christian ones do so saying that is tantamount to saying any non-Christian marriage is ridicules because they don't pledge till death in some hand fastenings or other wedding rituals. It’s prejudicial, pretentious, and in my opinion wrong.
  • Not at all. Its perfect wording. Fancy saying as long as you both shall live only to find your husband is a wife beater, scary stuff.
  • I do. I've found that the people I love most also have the uncanny knack for upsetting and frustrating me to the MAX with their quirks and dysfunctions. The words 'as long as we love' in the vows leaves me thinking that the couple hasn't acknowledged the hardship that naturally shows up when you make a true commitment to stick it out through thick and thin. It's easy to lose 'love' and take what you have for granted during stressful weeks or a few routine years together. And if you dont want to be together for a long time you dont have to get married. Makes me think they wont last long as a couple either.
  • I was at a wedding recently where the vows were changed from "as long as you both shall live" to "as long as you both shall love". Does anyone see a problem with that? yes its wrong because love is momentary while life is long. so relationship will flicker if u seriously think along these lines.
  • i wouldn't say that in my vows, but i think that since they're both on the same page - apparently - then who am i to tell them that they did their marriage wrong?
  • When the phrase "as long as you both shall live" was first used people lived a very short life. They didn't expect to be married for 40, 50 or 60 years. I seem to be in the minority here but I believe "as long as you both shall love" is more realistic. I do not believe using it advocates divorce in the least but let's face it, many marriages do end in divorce. Using the phrase "as long as you both shall love" is not saying they are going to love for a shorter period of time. It may still be for as long as they live and maybe make them more conscious of remaining in love so their marriage will last. Come to think of it, maybe it is better than as long you both shall live because that could be interpreted to mean no matter what I do to you, you can't leave me! Reminding them to stay in love is better. JMHO
  • Yeah, I do! That's just encouraging the couple not to work at making the marriage succeed. It says that they should feel free to split at the slightest inconvenience. I am relatively outraged at this. Etc.! Etc.! Etc. Etc. Etc.!!
  • Not a thing. It's doing what people, especially women, wished they could do since cave people days: admit it's over and move on without malice or bloodshed.
  • They changed the i to an o in live. This is obvious and i do not agree with the change.
  • As long as OBEY is in the vows I don't care if the woman loves me or not.
  • Well it negates the meaning of the word marriage for sure. It implies that as long as it is convenient the marriage is still in play. Really sad.
  • I like as long as you both shall love. Why stay in a marriage for a life time if you no longer love each other? Or if one person is abusing the other? I think as long as you both shall love can mean till death and beyond. I saw how my parents were so terribly unhappy in their marriage. I would not want them to be miserable for all there lives just because they were once in love with each other and now are not. They ended up staying together for 9 years longer to make a stable home life for me. I just saw their misery and hoped they would get a divorce. My dad found a wonderful women now who he loves dearly. My mom is perfectly happy being alone. I have been committed to my s/o for 15 1/2 years till love do us part. I believe we will spend eternity together.
  • Is it your wedding? If not, then who are you to comment on their commitment to each other?
  • Most of the marriages will only last for 3 - 5 years now.
  • I am a huge fan of the history of the words, I have been with my hubby for 13 years, married for 11, so I meant it. I did love the fact that so many people said it for so many generations before us, but times change. People write their own vows, and how a couple chooses to have their vows be said is their own business. I would have loved to write our own vows, but there was no time, LOL.
  • I was uncomfortable with the wording, but I don't condemn the couple in any way. to each his/her own. and the traditional wording "as long as you both shall live" is not a license, as some here have suggested, to abuse/mistreat your helpless spouse who is powerless to now leave you because they "promised" until death do they part. "until death" is proceeded by the mutual promise to honor and love, protect, nurture, and stay faithful to one another. a marriage vow is not a binding contract (divorce courts prove this every day) a marriage vow is a public announcement that you intend to do everything in your power to make this union a happy, healthy, nurturing one, for the rest of your lives. now that's a noble commitment.
  • The next step will be: "... as long as You both find this marriage beneficial to Your interest."
  • That is bizarre. Even though it is closer to reality, the intention at the time of getting married is to be married for life. I prefer as long as you both shall live.
  • Wow! They might as well hand them a divorce document to sign it as soon as the love is gone. Why even bother with the charade wedding. I would go to the reception without the gift and tell them that they can get it, when they reach a crossroad in there marriage. If they stay together they earn the gift as a congratulations.
  • Not if they signed a prenup and have their divorce lawyers picked out. Did they divvy up the gifts at the gift opening or wait until after the honeymoon?
  • is more honest, if i ever lose my mind and say the vows again i hope i remember this so i forgo the vows and just live with them. +5
  • no I am not... I am grateful that they were honest with themselves and eachother, however it needs to be given a civil union lable other than marrieage. I followed the former dispite my marriage to her costing every ounce of financial independance I could have, even giving up a federal job to move in with her family. she was the latter and ran away with cyber BF #3. people who are not capable of "till death do us part" need to stick with dating eachother.
  • Well, it's THEIR wedding and I suppose they can make their vows anything they wish. But it seems to me that there is a fundamental flaw in this particular concept. A wedding isn’t just about marrying someone you love because of an emotional feeling. It’s supposed to be something MORE than that. Basing a marriage upon an emotion, however strong, is basing it upon something which waxes and wans with time and experience. And before someone out there says “Well, if you don’t love someone, you shouldn’t marry them!” let me say that I agree with this totally. However, love is an EMOTION. Emotions change over time…they aren’t concrete. But a vow of commitment is SUPPOSED to be different. This is more than an emotional response…it’s a matter of honor as well. Don’t believe me? How many people out there can HONESTLY say that “love” is what you feel when you’re p*ssed off at your spouse or significant other? When you feel ANGRY at someone, you’re NOT feeling the emotion of LOVE. Yes, when things settle down the loving feeling returns. Hopefully, anyway. “Love” is NOT a commitment. People who make such statements like “as long as you both shall love” are mixing emotions with commitment under the (misguided) assumption that they are one and the same. Marriage ISN’T a fairy tale institution where people automatically “live happily ever after”. It’s a commitment that requires WORK. A commitment is a pledge, a promise; an obligation. The LEVEL of ones commitment indicates how serious one is about the motives behind the commitment. Let’s take a look at one example of a “traditional” vow: I, (name), take you (name), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part. “from this day forward”…this is the start of the commitment. “for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health”…this establishes the LEVEL of commitment. It says, essentially, that no matter what happens you will stand by your spouse at ALL times. “to love and to cherish”…this is supposed to be unconditional…and EXCLUSIVE. “until death do us part”…establishes the END of the commitment. It signals the ultimate level ones honor is required uphold. There are other “traditional” vows, but they are very similar. So, knowing that the level of ones commitment establishes how serious ones motives are, what does this say about people who would make their vows based on “as long as you both shall love”, hmmm? Personally, if people want to make changes to their vows to say things such as “as long as you both shall love”, they might as well make the whole thing read something like this: I, (name), take you (name) to be my (bed partner), to have and to fondle, in all the good times, until the money runs out or you are terminally ill or permanently injured, to love and to cherish until someone else comes along, as long as I feel like putting up with you, until I file for divorce and dump your *ss for another (woman/man). I mean, if you’re gonna make a COMMITMENT, then DO IT! Don’t be wishy-washy about it. Might as well never get married in the first place if you don’t want to make such a commitment.
  • OMG, I love that!!! It's cute and so much more befitting for marriages nowadays...
  • Marriage is a contract. Inserting such a subjective clause into the contract, voids it before it has even begun. I would bet that the ceremony was either in the U.S. or England. They have become countries based on instant gratification and lowered personal responsibility. I think that couples living together without a real marriage contract is social disaster. The change described, just formalizes the fact that when they get tired of each other, they split. I think it is very sad. I hope they don't have kids because they will be hurt by the divorce or morally damaged by their parents lack of commitment. That retards their social development.
  • It's more logical and realistic.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy