Image provided by: Clackamas Community College; Oregon City, OR
About The print. (Oregon City, Oregon) 1977-1989 | View Entire Issue (May 23, 1979)
Cohabitation a question of morals or preference ? By Kelly Laughlin Of The Print Questionnaires answered last week by College English, drafting and machine shop students reveal a generally liberal attitude toward cohabitation as an alternative or prerequisite to marriage. Of the 41 men and 42 women questioned, 38 believe in cohabitation an an alter native to marriage, while 36 think living together before marriage is a good idea. Ten surveyed believe living together without being married is not appropriate under any circum stances. A larger preference toward cohabitation as an alternative to marriage included varied comments by both men and [women students at the College. One 43-year-old male stated: “Often two individuals can live together in a relaxed, ‘we want to’ atmosphere, but once married, find that the pressures of a ‘now you have |o’ situation are too much to ¡bear.” . Another student expressed a ¡negative attitude toward ¡marriage. “If true caring is in volved, what says you have to wear a ring to say so? Unless there are children involved, I see no reason for marriage.” I A few students saw the benefits of a living arrangement. One thought living together “can create a very good foundation for an in timate relationship because there is not as much pressure on the couple as there is in [marriage.” One 18-year-old [woman thought problems are [more easily resolved in a living [together situation. “Living [together is a little more casual [than marriage. If there are [problems in the relationship, [they are more easily resolved. I [think there would be a little [more freedom of responsibility [in a living together relation ship.” [ The large number of studen ts who believe living together should only occur with the in tent of marriage later, also believe cohabitation is a good basis for a healthy married relationship. One student said, “I think it’s a good idea. That is, people can get to know one another’s pet peeves. It also seems that it’s good because most divorces occur in the first few months or years of marriage.” Another said living together helps “to see how a person js in every circumstance. No one can keep up a false front forever, and they really do act differently at home.” One student thought cohabiting prevents problems later on.“If you can’t live together un married, it’s doubtful you’ll be able to married. Better to find out first.” A small number of students, however, showed strong religious sentiments against cohabitation. “If you are not recognized by the state as married,” one student said, “you are not married in God’s sight.” Another referred to marriage as an institution that should be revered. “God in stituted marriage, in the Bible, and made it His plan. He did not institute living’together.” One student, however, voiced a more general disagreement with the living together arrangement. “There is an intimacy in sharing lives together that should be reser ved for a life of marriage.” To most students surveyed, cohabitation is becoming a more desireable lifestyle than it was considered in the past. But what about the status of the “marriage institution?” Forty-four students thought marriage is now less important than it was 10 years ago, while 18 said its status has remained constant. Three entered no comment. Some said the pressures in our society to marry are diminishing, while divorce is increasing, to provide marriage partners with an easy escape. Clackamas Community College , As one student put it, “divorce wasn’t as approved of before. We can now look at marriage as having an easy escape, if we don’t want our partner anymore.” Another student remarked, “since divorce has gone up tremendously, in the past 10 years, people are trying ditterent ways of forming long term relationships without being burdened by the pressures of marriage.” A few students felt that marriage is now not the social obligation that it used to be. “It’s generally more acceptable today for people to live together as long as both par- tners understand the arrangement,” said one. An- other stated, “marriage is not a big thing anymore. People should do what they feel is right.” The 18 students who said marriage has not shifted in im portance believe that people’s attitudes toward marriage have changed more markedly. One <! student thought marriage remains the “common ideal in our society, but many people are not married, and are taking on varied lifestyles which are gaining wider recognition.” Another said more couples are weighing the advantage and disadvantages about the idea of marriage to see if it’s important to them. One single man said, “Women are getting the idea they have a right to choose their own, unique lifestyles, in stead of taking on a traditional role.” One called marriage a “dying tradition,” and said women need not depend on a man as much and can make it alone. Strong views about a sup posed moral decay in today’s culture were voiced by another student, who said, “In the United States, we. are ex periencing rapid moral decay, and if reforms aren’t made soon, our nation will fall like the Roman Empire.” Another thought the importance of marriage has “deteriorated to the depths of sin and degradation (Romans 3.23).” A small number of students, however, think marriage is just as important today as it ever was. One student said, “We need marriage more than we ever have. It makes people more responsible to another, and to think twice before saying quits.” Another said, “I don’t feel the importance has changed. Many people still feel marriage is the way to go. To me, marriage is a sacred in stitution and should be meaningful. I strongly frown upon divorce.” Overall, the 84 students were somewhat split in their views about the right of a non- married living partner io file suit for unequal distribution of fun ds (a la Michele Triola Marvin, who recently won a property settlement from former living partner Lee Marvin. Of the students surveyed, 29 think the law is fair, while 45 believe it does not serve the best interests of a cohabitation arrangement. Ten slated no comment. One student who did not directly answer the question said, “Money and property agreements should be put in writing between two people, since actual trust doesn’t seem to cover all the bases. I would like to see people get out of a relationship what they put into it. If they put in greed, perhaps what they will get out- are lawsuits.” The general reasoning of students who think the law is fair is explained in this student’s comment: “There are two lives involved. One life is no more important than another. No one should lose it all.” Another stated, “If we both put equal time and money into everything, then we should at least get half of everything.” One student, however, thought the law is not quite this unconditional. “The partner should sue only if he/she is not getting back what they con tributed.” Another said, “A suit should only be filed if there’s probably cause.” Another student cited the importance of non-monetary contributions to a living arrangement. “I think the law is fair because both people contribute to a relation ship. It may not be money, but it could be something that has just as much value.” Several students thought a contract should be agreed to prior to moving in together. “If you are not getting along,you should make an agreement beforehand of who gets what, over the split in purchases.” Another added, “Everything should be worked out before moving in.” The large number of studen ts who think the right (to sue af ter splitting up) is unfair had in consistent statements. Two students said, because the couple has no legal obligation to one another, the law gover ning property settlements should not be valid. It should apply, they said, only in marriage situations. One thought the partner should keep possessions separated even if they are close, and have no mutual ownership of anything. “You are just living together,” he said, “not married.” Another student disagrees with the law because it limits (continued on page 4) Oh Thank Heavens for 7 Days OPEN ELEVEN a Week 24 HOURS €> • ! * Fountain Service* ** 32 oz. Big Gulp 29 cents ★★ 'Hot to Go ♦ Cold to Go May Special 4 i ♦ « ■ ★ Groceries ♦ J Truck Stopper * ★ Beverages ★ Beer • I ★ Wine * $1.09 * ★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★ <! ★★ Plus Imported Beer ★★ • > Assorted Pastries and Hot Coffee for your Morning Delight 7th & Washington Oregon City < > Page 3