Welcome to Gaia! ::

That sounds like a ridiculous idea to me. In theory, it sounds fine, but that's assuming everything he says his true, which it more than likely is not. I don't get how this would be any less traumatizing than a divorce. Plus, a "diploma"? What the hell is up with that?

"I've had six wives, and this here paper proves it!"

That's a load of crap.

This hearkens back to the idea of handfastings and Celtic practices. Commonly in Wiccan practice, one "marries" for a year-and-a-day. It's like a trial period. After this point, the couple can decide to renew their vows for another year-and-a-day, or make the joining permanent.

This sort of thing suggests that the vows made are more serious than a wedding without, shall we say, a trial period. It means that they're thinking "when I say forever, I want to mean it". This doesn't mean that they will be together forever, but that they want to make sure that they can live together in that sort of bond first.

I see nothing wrong with the idea. You'd get the same rights as a married couple, rather than a de facto. This is important to some people. I think a handfasting or other non-legal ceremony would be good enough, but there are legal issues that might make a legal ceremony the more preferable option.

I think that the problems would be related to the idea of it being a limited-time thing, suggesting perhaps that "when this time is over, we will break up". I don't think that that's what the guy means as such. I think, though, that five and seven years are too long and defeat the very purpose of the idea. After three years, you should be sure, one way or the other. Or at least, sure enough.

This doesn't mean that there won't be problems later on. And that's fine. But if you don't know after three years whether you want to make a permanent commitment to a person, if you don't know whether you love them that much, why extend it for seven years? I'm not saying break up, but, well, you know what I mean.

Well if you consider the divorce rate in America it would seem this IS the best way to solve it, all tho I realize that marriage IS NOT a business deal, If it was then this would be a decent way to solve it, Maybe it should be an option you could choose to do this (even tho I personally would not) You could choose basically at the alter (but not literally) whether or not you wanted to have traditional life long marriage or a renewable marriage, and then after the 3,5,or 7 years after you could get it renewed you could choose to get a traditional marriage if you knew thats what you wanted.

What a ridiculous idea. I've been married and divorced myself. No, there were no kids involved, but I learned my lesson. I got married for all the wrong reasons, and I regret what I did. But I chose that path out of free will and it was permanent and binding. If you really wanna go through a "trial run", live with the person a few years. Not hard. I did it for 3 years before I got married. It was like being married without the paperwork. I got to know what the guy was like during his everyday living. How he acted, what his little disadvantages were. But I didn't need a little diploma or anything to say I was with the person. LTM is a stupid way to say you got married to a person. It's a cheap way to get out of a marriage without paying tons of money because you made a mistake. Suck it up, go through the legal system, get a real marriage, and if you don't like it, pay the consequences. I did.

And it taught me a valuable lesson. Be careful who you chose as a mate. Learn about them and don't just say "I do" because you can. Say "I do" because you mean it.

it doesn't make sense on one part. like kids really care if mom and dad are fighting over their custody, the house and money, they see that one parent is gone. that's all that really matters to them. and you should of taken it seriously before doing anything that would possibly bring kids in the world. and you should know the person long enough to know if you want to marry them or live with them for extended periods of time (here, it aint uncommon for people to get married after knowing each other for a month just so they can f*** legally, then they get divorced two months later because the sex and the person aint right for them. they'd probably like that idea so they could see, but do enough of these limited marriages ,and either you're a commitment phobe, a whore or a man whore, depending on your gender).

It might not be too bad of an idea. In America marriage barely means anything anymore. Its not just famous people divorcing after a few months. However, I think it would still be unfair and hard on the kids no matter what. And some people may just use this as an excuse to show off to everyone how many times they've been married.