The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Is it possible to Romantically Love two people?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2015 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 517 times Debate No: 70012
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




1) Love is defined on as a profound, tender, passionate affection for another.
2) Since love can be defined as a passionate affection for another, that does not mean it can be limited to just one physical being.
3) In parts of Africa and the Middle-East, polygamy is a practice that is permitted and allowed where a man can be married to more than one partner, of which marriage is defined as a ceremonial pledge where partners establish their decision to unite themselves intimately to have a committed relationship with one another.
4) Love itself has many variations, whether it be objective, lust, or romantic; a person could love more than one partner at the same time romantically due to the fact that love is not a physical ailment that can be defined into one simple definition.
5) By nature and what we can see about our primal cousins and other species, monogamy doesn't typically exist in the animal kingdom. Many male species have their own primal instinct to mate with all female partners that are fertile. Primates are scientifically proven to be above 99% of their DNA parallel to human beings, so does that make us that different in the way our minds work? Since we are technically evolved primates, then we shouldn't deny the need to love more than one person if it passes our brain.
6) Love is an emotion; emotions happen randomly. You can be angry, sad, happy; love is also an emotion. You can feel "love", and it is typically stated throughout many films and the main media as something that is "unexplained".

7) Therefore, it can be possible to love more than one person at the same time.

Non Controversial: Premises 1 and 2 are based upon definitions that can be found in dictionaries and online, thus it can not be controversial. Premise 5 is shown if you simply read books on the Animal Kingdom, watch Animal Planet, or simply study Biology because we are genetically 99%+ related to primates.

Controversial: Premise 3 can be controversial if you believe that you don't have to be intimate with someone else just because you are married with them. Premise 4 could be argued simply because love in itself has many definitions and can be seen differently for everyone. Premise 6 is the argument that I am stating because love is something that has been broadcast throughout the years as something that can basically just "happen", but it can be argued as wrong if you think so. Love is just something that you can't restrict to being explained as a feeling that can only be towards one physical being.


1) I agree with that definition of love.
2) I do not agree with this premise because romantic love is more than just passionate affection. The given definition of love described it as also being profound. This part of the definition is necessary. If romantic love is truly profound, there can only be one person who receives this love.
3) Just because polygamy is permitted and allowed in some countries does not mean that the people involved are happy with their marriages and feel the love that they were promised at the altar. Many people decide to participate in polygamy because of religious beliefs. People believe that they will be admitted to heaven by being obedient to their religion and becoming polygamists. People who are in these situations are often afraid to admit that their relationships are flawed and many who leave these relationships admit that the love for each spouse is never the same.
4) Being that love has so many variations, a person is capable of having many different kinds of love for many different people. This does necessarily mean that a person can romantically love more than one person.
5) Although primates do have the scientific desire to mate with multiple partners, mating and romantically loving a person cannot be considered the same thing.
6) I cannot fully agree with this premise because love can happen randomly but this does necessarily guarantee that a person is capable of randomly falling in love with multiple people. This could simply mean a person can randomly fall in love with one person.
7) Therefore, a person is not capable of loving more than one person.

Non-Controversial: Premise 1, 3 and 6 are not controversial. Premise 1 is simply a definition of love. Premise 3 states the fact that polygamy exists. Premise 6 is also not controversial because love is an emotion that can happen at random and it often times cannot be explained.

Controversial: For premise 2, the passionate love described is not necessarily romantic love. For premise 5 it can be argued that other primates are not as evolved as human beings. Therefore their definition of love cannot be considered the same as ours.
Debate Round No. 1


2: R03;You agree on the definition of love, but try to specify that profound is a term that is trying to base itself onto just one entity. How is romantic love only limited to one person? That is something that is based upon what society believes, but society shouldn't be the judge of what love should be.
3: I understand what you are saying in that people do not wed because they are in love; it is seen pretty commonly today with many more divorces becoming a norm and even advertised on billboards about Divorce lawyers and paying for divorce papers without the spouse's signature needed. However, religion is something that is a strong impact on many people. Mormons are known to commonly practice polygamy. They wed many wives and have children, and they are a religious people that have documentaries and many books that you can read about them and their lives today. They are not known to be of a violent nature or disrespectful of their women, so what is to say that they aren't in love with all of their wives?
4: Since there are many variations of love, then you really can not specify if you really know the type of love one is feeling. If someone believes they are romantically in love with more than one person, who's to say that's not how they feel? Everyone is unique and has different feelings.
5: I agree that mating and romantically loving someone aren't the same thing, but you can not deny that we have evolved from primates but still retain very similar instincts. To primates, mating involves Pheromones and a natural attraction to who they partner up with, and it's completely normal for them to go to multiple mates. For humans, we can have the same feeling of attraction to more than one being and then want to be with two partners at the same time; that is nothing to be ashamed of it it's the case- we were evolved from it.
6: Something that happens randomly is something that we can not clearly judge as a standard point. What I basically mean is that because something is random, that simply means that anything can happen: love is an emotion, and emotions are feelings that just happen. It's not anyone's fault if they simply obtain an emotion of love towards another person even if they're currently committed with a partner; it can happen.


Premise 2 is hard to understand because there is a distinct difference between passion and profound love. You can experience passion with more than one person but profound love is different. There is a certain depth to profound love that one cannot experience with multiple people.

Regarding premise 3, I do not agree with your claims. Although husbands may not be disrespectful or violent to their multiple wives, this does not mean that respect is the same thing as romantic love.

In premise 4, although I agree that it is hard to determine what type of love people feel for each other, this does not mean that a person is capable of romantically loving more than one person. This premise could also mean that, even if a person says they are in love with multiple people does not mean they truly are because we do not know their feelings.

In premise 5, being attracted to multiple people is not the same as being in love. I agree that people can become attracted to multiple people but this does not mean that this attraction will lead to the profound sense of love for a real romantic connection.

I agree with premise 6 because it is true that love can happen randomly, even if a person is already committed to another partner. That does not mean that a person is romantically in love with their partner when they fall in love with someone else. It is still possible that a person can only romantically love one person.
Debate Round No. 2


-I disagree with your argument because you can't be passionate about something or someone if you don't have a sort of love to go with it, so in the case of a man who loves two women, he can have passion for his love of two partners.
- Respect and romantic love are similar but to different levels. You can respect anybody and not love them, but in regards to a relationship you have to have respect for the person you're involved with if you love them. You can't love your partner if you don't respect them. A man could be involved with two women and respect them both all the while loving them equally as well.
- Love having many variations leaves it at just that: it's too difficult to explain in simple terms. If someone claims they are in love with multiple people, I understand that you can assume they might not even be telling the truth. However, that is completely situational and dependent on who is the person claiming it and what actions they've done to prove it.
-I agree that people can just be attracted to multiple partners and not be in love with them, however being attracted and being in love are two completely different things; being attracted to someone could just be because of the way they look or act, but being in love with someone involves you being completely endowed and having strong feelings to be with them. If that's the case for a person, then why should they feel like they're being wrong with their feelings of love?
-You agree that love can happen randomly, but disagree that a person can romantically fall in love with someone else while they are still in a relationship. What's to say that isn't the case for a man who had just gotten out of a long-term relationship? He can be with a new partner that he claims he loves romantically and would do anything for but still has strong feelings for his ex that he spent years with.


-I now understand your point about passion and love.
-Regarding respect and love, I still do not agree that a person who has multiple partners proves that they romantically love their partner by respecting them. As you have stated, you do need to respect your partner to love them but you do not need to love someone to respect them. Your argument that a husband showing respect and not being violent means that they love their partner does not make complete sense to me.
-I overall agree with your statement that knowing if someone is actually in love is dependent on the person.
-I agree that being in love and being attracted to someone are very different things. A person should not feel necessarily ashamed for being attracted to multiple people but that still does not prove that a person is capable of loving more than one person.
-I agree that a person can fall in love with someone new while still having feelings for their ex. However, their feelings for the ex will not be the same as they were before if they are ready to move on and start loving someone else. They can have strong feelings but those feelings may not necessarily be a romantic love.
Debate Round No. 3


1: Love is a passionate affection one has for another.
2: I understand and agree in your reason that a man being respectful to multiple partners doesn't mean that he's in love with them.
3: R03;I firmly believe that Polygamy, even though it is religiously based, can still fulfill the requirement for romantically loving more than one wife because it is their religious duty.
4: Knowing somebody is in love with more than one partner is something you can't judge because everyone is different.
5: Being attracted to someone is not the same as loving them.
6: I understand that strong feelings towards an ex can be different than loving them, but I believe that the reason partners have trouble forgetting about their ex is solely because they're still in love with them as well as their new partner, thus creating confusion.

I completely understand your reasoning for saying that people can't be romantically in love with more than one person and I respect them. However, with my reasons above, I strongly believe that a person is completely capable of loving more than one person at the same time. Therefore, romantic love can occur to multiple partners.


1. I agree with your definition of love. Love can be defined as passionate affection.
2. It is true that a person being respectful to multiple partners does not mean that he romantically loves all of them.
3. Saying that polygamy is a person"s religious duty means that they feel obligated to do it. Feeling obligated to love someone does not make the feelings of love genuine or real. That makes it seem that the love is forced because of their religion which could not qualify at real romantic love.
4. Everyone is different and love does come in many variations but love is a universal emotion that everyone can experience so everyone can have a say in what is possible and not possible within the boundaries of love.
5. It is true that being attracted to someone is not the same as loving them.
6. People do have trouble forgetting about their ex when they are still in love with them but these feelings usually mean that they are not ready to be in another relationship and are unable to love their new partner in the same way that they loved their ex.
7. Therefore, it is not possible to romantically love more than one person.

Polygamy cannot be considered as real romantic love in many circumstances because, as you have stated, many people are in these relationships for religious reasons. If people are feeling any amount of pressure from external forces to practice polygamy, then that cannot be love. That sounds more like a "religious duty" as you have stated. Also, people in relationships who still have feelings for their ex most likely will never be able to able to love their new partner on the same level as they loved their ex. It is hard to judge when a person is in love and you cannot judge that but love is something that most people have felt before and therefore, can develop their own rational opinions on what is possible in loving someone. Overall, romantically loving more than one person is simply impossible.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.