The phrase omnia vincit amor (from Vergilius' tenth Ecloga; see full text in Latin and English) is typically translated as "love conquers everything". However, vincit can come from either vincere (to win) or vincire (to bind). This leads to the alternative translation "love confines everything", which is also a meaningful statement. This double meaning makes some sense in the context, too. Is there evidence that this double meaning was observed in antiquity? Has the phrase been used with both meanings? Is there a good reason to believe that it should be read as vincere rather than vincire?
As a first point, you are certainly not the first person to recognize this. I found a delightful little poem composed in the 19th century by a certain Piré that uses this same word-play:
Omnia Vincit Amor
Omnia vincit amor; non est hoc simplice sensu
Verum; cura duplex nascitur inde tibi:
Vincere scit telis, roseis vincire catenis;
Utcumque accipias, omnia vincit amor
This is not all, though: Varro, who was contemporary with Vergil (although born 40 years prior), develops this double-entendre:
Huic victrix Venus, videsne haec?
Non quod vincere velit Venus, sed vincire. Ipsa Victoria ab eo quod superati vinciuntur. (Varro, De lingua latina, 5, 62)
It is hard to judge Vergil's actual intention, but it seems fairly clear from context that the primary sense is from vincere.
A few lines before the cited verse, he speaks of carving his initials on a tree so that they grow together:
crescent illae, crescetis, amores.
The idea is of a love that will face all adversities. This is further developed in the verses immediately preceding, which speaks of various adversities the speak will endure (even if to no avail).
Finally, the juxtaposition with cedere favors the interpretation of vincere: if love conquers all, then we must yield to it. The step is less obvious (though, I admit, not implausible) if we see this as vincire.