Who invented the word "divorce" and why?
403575
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-frz&p=history%20of%20the%20word%20%22divorce%22\n\nno one person...it simply evolved from Latin as most all our words do....and it did so stemming from the need to identify the act of when a marriage had to be dissolved...Unfortunatley there have arisen these "necessities" throughout the course of history due not only to marital misbehavior, but poor judgements in entering marriage....it's just sad, but that's my take on it.
660425
Yes it has.  I also work in the legal field and our practice is mostly family law.  My divorce was pretty cut and dry.  I learned not to marry the first man you meet that is nice to you.  I also learned that there is life after divorce.  I'm married now to a wonderful man and have been in love with him for 20 years.
146308
this is what the bible says about divorce.\n\n\nDivorce is never permissible.\n    Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery. -- Mark 10:11\n\n    Whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery. -- Luke 16:18\n\nOnly when the wife is unfaithful\n    Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery. -- Matthew 5:32\n\n    Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery. -- Matthew 19:9\n\nWhen the 'unbelieving' partner chooses to leave\n    But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. -- 1 Corinthinians 7:15\n\nWhen the husband is displeased with his wife\n    When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. -- Deuteronomy 24:1-2
887675
She could be, but most women I know (including myself) use the form Ms.  It is not just for divorcees anymore!
165607
IT'A LONG, BUT INTERESTING:\n\n“They Must Become One Flesh”\n\nWhen the first human couple were wed, God stated that a man “must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24) Hence, marriage was to be a permanent bond. That is why Jesus later stated that “the ground of fornication” is the only basis for Scriptural divorce with the possibility of entering a new marriage.—Matthew 19:3-9  DEATH WOULD ALSO END THE MARRIAGE\n\nA Christian cannot enter marriage thinking: ‘If it doesn’t work out, I can always divorce.’ Marriage is to be viewed as a permanent bond.\n\nJesus made clear that marriage was to be permanent when he answered a question put to him about the propriety of divorce. He stated: “Did you not read that [God] who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.”—Matthew 19:4-6.\n\nDIVORCE AND SEPARATION\n\n  God, the Originator of marriage, designed it to be a permanent union. But is there any Scriptural reason for a person to divorce his or her mate—and one that would allow for the possibility of remarrying? Jesus addressed this matter by declaring: “I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:9) Sexual infidelity by a mate is the only ground for a divorce that will allow the innocent mate to remarry.\n\n  In addition, the Bible’s words at 1 Corinthians 7:10-16, while encouraging marriage mates to stay together, allow for separation. Some, after trying very hard to preserve their marriage, feel they have no choice but to separate. What can be acceptable Scriptural grounds for such a step?\n\n  One is willful nonsupport. When getting married, a husband assumes the responsibility of providing for his wife and children. The man who willfully fails to provide the material necessities of life “has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith.” (1 Timothy 5:8) So separation is possible.\n\n  Another is extreme physical abuse. So then, if a mate physically abuses his wife, the victim may separate. (Galatians 5:19-21; Titus 1:7) “Anyone loving violence [God’s] soul certainly hates.”—Psalm 11:5.\n\n  Another ground for separation is the absolute endangerment of a believer’s spirituality—one’s relationship with God. When a mate’s opposition, perhaps including physical restraint, has made it impossible to pursue true worship and has imperiled the believer’s spirituality, then some believers have found it necessary to separate.—Matthew 22:37; Acts 5:27-32.\n\n  However, if divorce is pursued under such circumstances, one would not be free to enter a new marriage. According to the Bible, the only legitimate ground for divorce that permits remarriage is adultery or “fornication.”—Matthew 5:32.\n\nNEXT IS A ??? THAT WAS ASKED BY  SOMEONE:\nNo Divorce?\n\nI disagree with your view that the Bible allows the innocent mate to remarry. (January 8, 1986, page 12, footnote) Whoever separates from the other should remain single or else be reconciled. (1 Corinthians 7:10, 11) One should be prepared to forgive the mate.\n\nO. A. F., Nigeria\n\nForgiveness is proper when the guilty party truly repents. However, at Matthew 19:9 Jesus stated: “I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery.” This indicates that if the innocent party gains a divorce on the grounds of fornication, he is free to marry another without that being considered adultery. At 1 Corinthians 7, Paul is referring to a separation rather than a Scriptural divorce.\n\nTo what extent need a faithful Christian wife resist a divorce action brought by her mate?\n
5836
Today, the tradition of a honeymoon following nuptials has, long way from its original meaning. Today's "happy ending" to the wedding event is a far cry from its much different beginnings. The word honeymoon has its roots in the Norse word "hjunottsmanathr" which was anything but blissful. Northern European history describes the abduction of a bride from neighboring village. It was imperative, that the abductor, the husband to be, take his bride to be into hiding for period of time. His friends assured his and her safe keeping and kept their whereabouts unknown. Once the bride's family gave up their search, the bride groom returned to his people. This folkloric explanation presumably is the origin of today's honeymoon, for its original meaning meant hiding. \n\nThe Scandinavian word for honeymoon is derived, in part, from an ancient Northern European custom in which newlyweds, for the first month of their married life, drank a daily cup of honeyed wine called mead. The ancient practices of kidnaping of bride and drinking the honeyed wine date back to the history of Atilla, king of the Asiatic Huns from A.D. 433 to A.D. 453. \n\nSo that leaves us with the question of where the "moon" in the word "honeymoon" originates. One piece of folklore relates that the origin of the word moon comes from a cynical inference. To the Northern Europeans the terms referred to the body's monthly cycle and, its combination with honey, suggested that not all moon's of married life were as sweet as the first. British prose writers and poets, in the 16th and 17th centuries, often made use of the Nordic interpretation of honeymoon as a waxing and waning of marital affection.
920265
The passage of inspired text to which you refer finds place with in the context of the Lord's conversation with the Jews who were tempting him in an effort to "catch him in his words" as they often did.  The Jews knowing of the continued controversary about marriage law which found much addressing between the Jews who insisted that Moses allowed divorce for any reason, and the Jews who contended that that which Moses' law was restricted to divorce based upon adultrey only, well realized that the marriage, divorce, re-marriage topic was hotly contested. They concluded that such was indeed the best of subjects with which to put the Lord in the proverbial hot water before the then present audience.\nThe Lord, however, being wise to the foolishness of such simply asked the question; "have ye not read" the Scripture? The Lord plainly refered the Jews to the Garden of Eden when God established his law regarding marriage. It is of good importance to notice that in the context of Matt.19:1-12 the Lord twice referd to the "begining," going back to God's law regarding marriage established in the Garden.  The Lord explained that God's law was never intended to be set aside concerning marriage, and that God intends that marriage is to be for life, and that divorce was never even so much as mentioned in the Genesis record. Thus the importance of that which the Lord stated in Matt.19:6 "That which God hath joined together, let not man put assunder."\nThe Jews then followed up with the question; "why did Moses then command " that a bill of divorcement be given?  Jesus informed the Jews that Moses did so because of the "hardness of the hearts" (Matt. 19:8) of the Jews.   Notice again the Lord's comment when he stated; "but from the begining it was not so" (Matt.19:8). \nThe Lord plainly revealed the fact that God's law pertaining to marriage was to be forever sealed, that is marriage is for life and only in the case of adultery may one (an innocent party)  put away a mate. Only the innocent mate in a marriage has the right to divorce a spouce who has committed adultery.  The innocent party then has the right to re-marry with God's approval, and only the innocent party (Matt.19:6). \nThe Lord plainly declared that one who was put away for adultery has lost the right to re-marry and must remain single. One guilty of adultery must come to the knowlege of the truth and comply with God's marriage law and remain single. For one to re-marry, who has committed adultery, places one in a continoius state of adultery. Thus the reason the Lord prohibited the mate guilty of adultry to re-marry.  It must also be realized that the only reason the Lord authorized divorce is in fact adultery.  If a divorce occurs in which neither spouce has committed adultery then neither spouce meets the requirements of the only exception authorized by the Lord to indeed acquire a divorce. Thus neither spouce has the right to re-marry, for neither one has indeed met the law establishing the exception the Lord allowed.\nAfter the Lord had well explained this matter to the Jews then present, (the 12 apostles also being present) the apostles concluded that if that which the Lord had just set forth in verses 4-9 were true it would be better to never marry if one could not divorce his spouce (Matt.19:10). The Lord of course gave this a ready reply. The reply is indeed recorded in verses 11 and 12\nNotice: \nVerse 11; "But he (Jesus) said unto them, all men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given."     The passage is this by way of explaination. \nFirst; note that the words "But he said" are used. This of course settles the matter of the authority. It was Christ who said what he said.  Therefore, all men ought to heed well that which has been declared in the passage.\n\nSecond; The Lord stated, "All men cannot receive this saying."
967839
Alot of people think divorce is the easy way out. You don't have to try anymore and you don't have to admit your own faults. Trying to salvage a marriage has got to be one of the hardest things in the world to do. It is filled with raw emotion that just runs away sometimes.  If people can keep their anger in check and concentrate on whats important in the marriage they have a chance. Other than that, I can't think of a way to save a marriage.
28186
I don't know who "invented" (first derived) it, but\nit falls out from some reasonably straight forward math.\nSee the explanation at:\n\n    http://www.moneychimp.com/features/rule72_why.htm
504155
umm, you should first learn how to spell "married," "should," and "divorce"
224829
They choose bad lawyers.\nThat isn't true maybe you feel that way  but "always" is a strong term.\nWhen a marriage ends both people are "screwed" out of the future they planned .the one that was to last a life time shared.\nGL\nDon't worry about losing.  If it is right, it happens - The Main thing is not to hurry.  Nothing good gets away.  ~John Steinbeck, 10 November 1958\n\nWhat is the opposite of two?  A lonely me, a lonely you.  ~Richard Wilbur
1156898
No-fault divorce is divorce in which the dissolution of a marriage does not require fault on either husband or wife to be shown. It occurs on petition to the court, typically a family court by either party, without the requirement that the petitioner show fault on the part of the other party. Either party may request, and receive, the dissolution of the marriage, despite the objections of the other party.\n\nModern "no-fault" divorce came about because of widespread disgust among lawyers, judges, and the general public with the legal fictions that had become commonplace since the mid-20th century.\n\nPrior to the no-fault divorce revolution, a divorce could be obtained only through a showing of fault. This was something more than not loving one another; it meant that one spouse had to plead that the other had committed adultery or abandonment or some other similarly sinful act. However, the other spouse could plead a variety of defenses like recrimination. Often, a judge might find that the defendant had not committed the alleged act, or that both spouses were at fault for the fact that the marriage was dysfunctional. Either way, the judge would refuse to dissolve the marriage.\n\nSubsequently, at some point the two spouses would each find some other person they really loved, and then would seek to marry that other person. But first, they had to get rid of their existing marriage or risk prosecution for bigamy.\n\nNew York was notorious for its "collusive adultery," in which both sides deliberately agreed that the wife would come home at a certain time and discover her husband committing adultery with a "mistress" obtained for the occasion.[1] She would then swear to a carefully tailored version of these facts in court (committing perjury in the process), the husband would sheepishly admit to a similar version of the facts, the judge would convict the husband of adultery, and the couple would be divorced.\n\nIn most other states, especially California, the most popular grounds for divorce was cruelty (which was unavailable in New York). For example, by 1950, wives were pleading cruelty in 70 percent of divorce cases in San Francisco.[2] In case after case, wives would testify to the same pitiful facts: their husbands swore at them, hit them, and generally treated them terribly.\n\nThis procedure was described by California Supreme Court justice Stanley Mosk in a passionate dissent:\n\nEvery day, in every superior court in the state, the same melancholy charade was played: the "innocent" spouse, generally the wife, would take the stand and, to the accompanying cacophony of sobbing and nose-blowing, testify under the deft guidance of an attorney to the spousal conduct that she deemed "cruel." — In re Marriage of McKim, 6 Cal. 3d 673 (1972) (Mosk, J., dissenting) [3]. \nNeedless to say, such empty procedures were appalling to both lawyers and judges, who felt that it made oaths meaningless and threatened to destroy the integrity of the American justice system (by making lying in court into a commonplace occurrence).\n\nIndeed, as early as the 1930s, a treatise on American family law had complained:\n\nIn divorce litigation it is well known that the parties often seek to evade the statutory limitations and thus there is great danger of perjury, collusion, and fraud .... In many cases no defense is interposed, and often when the case is contested the contest is not waged with vigor or good faith.[4] \nStarting in the 1960s, numerous commentators pointed out that it might be best to recognize that two spouses who were determined to end their marriage would get what they wanted by any means necessary. Therefore, they argued, the law should adapt by providing a straightforward procedure for ending a marriage, rather than forcing a couple who just couldn't get along to choose between living together in "marital hell" or lying under oath in open court. The most prominent
146085
The only dumb question is the one you don't ask.  But you're absolutely right.  Divorce is a very sad but true fact of life in today's society.\n\nThe underlying reason is probably how materialistic and selfish this society has become.  It is no longer "I need to do my part and be patient", instead it's "What have you done for me lately".  \n\nPart of it maybe the fact that men and women communicate differently.  But that's always been the case throughout history.\n\nThe other part of it is permiscuity.  Statistically, 80% of divorces are because of infidelity.  The reason this has become so is directly attributable to pre-marital sex.  People will continue to deny this, but the statistics are very clear.\n\nThink about it from a psychological point of view.  Once the heart is broken (i.e. after one's first love), it can never be put back to it's original state.  The emotional scar may heal, but it will never disappear.  This creates mistrust between the sexes.  Ultimately, people get numbed to it and it becomes a predatory game.\n\nAlso, after leaving the first partner, one becomes very curious about all potential partners.  Whereas if intimacy is saved for the institution of marriage, then the partners learn how to fully satisfy each other without any temptation from outside the marriage.\n\nThe problem only gets worse with every generation.  Once a child grows up in an environment that does not hold marriage sacred, then they will end up taking it even a step further.\n\nWe all have to learn to "love the one you're with".  No one is perfect.  Instead of listening to that little voice in your head that nags you about how annoying your partner's habbits are, learn to love those habbits.  They are what makes your partner who they are.  \n\nWe have to learn to appreciate the good and the bad.  After all, it is for better or for worse.\n\nAnd God only knows best.
991682
Probaly bill gates. I'm male & straight, but if it's just for day, I could live with that for the divorce settlement! plus, after all the times I've been screwed by Microsoft software, It would be nice to screw his butt right back on our wedding night ;)
111517
Seems to be unknown. Can't find any single person credited, so maybe the term just came into popular use around the same time (journalists?). \n\nMaybe look for the earliest use of that term, going back to summer 1929 (predating the Wall Street crash by a few months).\n\n(Does anyone have access to WSJ.com archives, do they go back that far?)
822426
Divorce.  That usually does the trick.
372710
I'm confused. Divorce was discussed on Saturday. Today is\nMonday. Were you in Divorce Court this morning, finalizing\nthe Decree? Are you a part of that group that says three\ntimes, "I Divorce You", and then you're divorced? You are\nnot divorced yet. Are you? Is this the way it is today?\nSay divorce once and it's over? Are you absolutely sure\nthat you're getting divorced? Could this just be a Fight,\nQuarrel, Spat, Disagreement, Bluff,Etc.?                  \n   Ask yourself, "What kind of man was he Friday, that he\nwould leave on Saturday, (he did leave, right?), after\nvowing eternal togetherness? There's something wrong with\nthis picture. Stop. Think. Can this be real? Don't invite\nreal pain in, if this isn't real. Can this man be the type\nof man that would do this to you? Could he do this to his\nchildren? If he is just that type of man, why would want to\nstay? If all of this is real, you will have to endure the\npain for awhile. How long and how painful, will be of your\nown design. If you have real, loving friends and family, it\nshould be easier. Seek the care of the good people you know.\nBut. Be sure that the sky is really falling, before you\nget yourself all lathered up. This could be a temporary\ncondition brought on by who knows what. It could be that\nyour man is a good man, and he's having troubled thoughts.\nGet professional help if possible. Or seek the wisdom of\nthe wise. God Bless You and your Family.\n  P.S. I kissed my Grandmother good-bye last week, and a\nclose friend Friday. It does get better.