With regards to wedding vows, do you prefer ditching the "till death do us part" vows in favour of?

I don't like "till death do us part" so I would change it, but only to "as long as we both shall live." It feels a lot more lasting to me - If my husband died the next day I wouldn't want to just move on...

Personally, I view marriage as a life-long commitment, but I can understand why people of my generation would want that 'get out clause' as many will have seen parents, who committed 'til death us do part' go through bitter divorce proceedings ending in broken families and hatred where there should be respect.

In an ideal world no-one would rush into marriage and those that marry would remain married for life; in the real world people want to celebrate their relationships without making the same mistakes their parents did.

In the UK a marriage has to be a life long contract, there is no way of varying this with a shorter fixed time marriage contract. A divorce is a mechanism to dissolve the life long marital contract. An annulment is the voiding of a voidable marriage or the declaration that a marriage was void from the start

I would say if you spoke wedding vows where there wasn't a life long marital contract, then the marriage would probably be void.

we had 'till death do us part' in our marriage vows as when we got married we never once thought OMG what if we split up. We did however have the OBEY taken out, there was no way in the world i was going to say i will obey.

For godsake dave get over yourself!!!! It was both our decision and considering we have been together 26 yrs and married for 13 yrs i think me and my husband are doing very well thank you and we are only 39 yrs old.

DAVE I think you were really nasty and didn't have to quite so brutal and yes i have taken it personally, there was absorlutly no need for your answer to of been direct nastiness towards me. Obey is yes only a word but a very old fashioned word. people do not go around saying i obeyed my husband today, i clearly see that you are a man so god help your wife or wife to be if you ever find one with that attitude.

Some of the young people today really baffle me. They have this idea that you can go in and out of Marriage, on a whim.To put in a clause that they have options after five years, tells me that they do not intend to make that commitment at all.So surely it is a waste of time, both for their Parents who finance the wedding, and all the guests who buy wedding gifts.I always thought that to get married was to love someone, and ready to spend the rest of your days with that person.But who am I to judge when I was married for over forty years, and then lost my true love.

Marriage used to be a simple contract organising ownership and heredity. It was important for social status and for legitimising children.

However many men and women had "love" affairs outside marriage.

Today marriage undergoes the stress of having to meet both worlds: social and affective. I think marriage has become emotional and often unrealistic. But a happy marriage is nice to see and while it lasts, why not promise everlasting love?

The problem today is that couples who marry do not appreciate the responsibility that marriage takes. They take their marriage vows as a matter of course without thinking of the commitment they are making. I courted my wife for 4 years before we knew we were suited for marriage, and we have stayed together now for 51 years. I still love my wife as i did when i proposed to her. we have had our tiffs and arguments but have worked at them and carried on. We would never dream of running to the divorce court. besides she is my darling little treasure.

No, there shouldn't be any get out clause or pre-nuptial agreement rubbish. It's doomed to fail from the start that way.

Not at all. I made that vow over 30 years ago, and I am sticking to it.

oh god.

Mully is clearly one of these feminists. Good luck to her husband. He'll need it.

(its just a word Mully, get over yourself)