The Instigator
Clearys
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
grilojo
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Is it possible to be romantically in love with more than one person?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Clearys
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 465 times Debate No: 68839
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Clearys

Pro

1. Romantic love is the expressive and pleasurable feeling from an emotional attraction towards another person.
2. An individual can feel an emotional or physical attraction to more than one person.
3. Individuals can be romantically in love with multiple people because of the nature of the law of attraction, which draws similar energies together and can encourage an emotional attraction to like minded individuals.
4. Open relationships exist as an agreement between two individuals that they can also see other people. Said relationships are built upon the terms that both parties can do what they please without telling one another.
5. Polygamous relationships involve having ore than one spouse at one time. There are many successful polygamous relationships, i.e the Brown family, a.k.a Sister Wives.
6. According to Psychology, it takes a fifth of a second to fall in love, so technically individuals can fall in love with more than one person and this can happen quite often if the right chemicals are induced in the brain, yet choosing their partner is up to them.
7. Romantic love and a monogamous relationship are not mutually exclusive. One can exist without the other, and are two separate entities.
8. Not all monogamous couples are romantically in love. Faithfulness to one person does not guarantee a loving relationship.
9. Therefore, it is possible for an individual to be in love with more than one person romantically.

Non-Controversial
Premises 1, 4, and 5 are non-controversial.
1. My opponent and I have agreed on this definition of romantic love.
4. This is the definition of an open relationship and can not be refuted.
5. This claim is based on evidence of a real polygamist family that has formed successful relationships.

Controversial
Premise 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 are controversial.
2. Feelings and emotions are subjective, therefore one can argue that individuals can't experience romantic love with more than one individual, or that every experience is different and there is no way of knowing. However, this is not to say that it is not possible for individuals to be attracted to multiple people in a romantic way since feelings are unpredictable and cannot be prevented. Although love may be interpreted differently from individual to individual, it is always sparked by the same attraction and emotional connection, which one can form with multiple people in a lifetime.
3. One can argue that the law of attraction is true only for energies, and although we can attract energy and people that are like us, that does not mean we attract them in a romantic way. Yet, many people who are alike become attracted to one another and can form a romantic relationship based off of these likenesses. It is indeed possible for people to find this attraction in multiple individuals.
6. Although this claim relies upon psychological research, my opponent can argue that there are different types of love, and that although we can love many people we only love one romantically. However, it is possible to fall in and out of love with people, and these can crossover at a point. That being said, an individual may love one person at a time and come to love another as well.
7. Although polygamist relationships do exist and can be successful, my opponent will most likely argue that monogamy and the devotion to one individual is the epitome of romantic love. However, there are many polygamist relationships that succeed based off of the balance created between having multiple spouses. Just because one may not agree with a certain religion or point of view, does not mean it isn't possible.
8. My opponent may argue that there indeed needs to be faithfulness as an important component of a successful loving romantic relationship. However, as stated earlier, open relationships can be successful without the two partners being sworn exclusively to each other.

Sources:
http://www.spring.org.uk...
grilojo

Con

1. I agree with your definition of Romantic love is the expressive and pleasurable feeling from an emotional attraction towards another person.
2. It is morally wrong to be romantically in love with more than one person at once.
3. When in love with 1 person and one person chance of divorce drops drastically.
4. Monogamous relationships involve having only one spouse or significant other at one time. This type of relationship is found in most religions.
5.Being monogamous builds trust between the two mates.
6. Monogamy keeps everything in line and there is no reason to ever lie about anything.
7. Therefore, it is possible for an Individual to be in love with only one person

Non-Controversial
Premises 1,4, 5.
1. My opponent and I have agreed on the definition of romantic love .
4. This is a definition of monogamy and cannot be refuted.
5. Is a fact about the topic I am defending and cannot be refuted.

Controversial
Premises 2, 3,6
2. In many religious books and religions, it is morally wrong to be romantically in love with more than one person. In the US it is frowned upon by many to cheat on your significant other or be dating multiple.
3. Means exactly what it means.
6. Its pretty much the same thing as 3 but to expand a little more. People wouldn't frantically running around saying who is the father of my child being involved with one person and also many spouses wouldn't have to think of lies to tell their significant other.
Debate Round No. 1
Clearys

Pro

2: You state that it is "morally" wrong to be in love with more than one person. Define morals. Different people have different morals. So what may constitute as immoral to you may be moral to another. This is why relationships vary, because what doesn't work/seem moral to you may work for someone else's relationship. Just because something isn't the norm doesn't mean it cannot work or be accepted. You mention that in books or religions it is not morally acceptable, however not all people worship the same religions- therefore it is irrelevant. Also, morality isn't the issue in this case, it is the possibility of being in love romantically with more than one person.
3. I'm not sure what you mean by this one, I may have been confused with the wording but are you saying in a monogamous relationship there are less chances of divorce? If so, there are cases where divorce comes from "cheating" spouses. However, not all these cheating spouses are romantically in love with the person they are cheating with. There are also plenty of monogamous relationships that end in divorce because of other disagreements. The issue at hand is not whether these relationships succeed, but merely if it is possible for a person to love two, or more, people at the same time. Please clarify.
5.I agree that monogamy is a foundation of trust in most relationships, however, couples who agree on seeing other people, i.e open relationships, trust their partner and also allow them to do as they please. In such cases trust does not make them more or less in love, it is just the degree of trust on which they agree on. Which, as aforementioned, can vary with different individuals. It's their prerogative, so to speak.
6. Just because someone is in a polygamist relationship does not mean they lie. Monogamous relationships, on the same token, don't guarantee that either partner will be honest or trustworthy. The argument that monogamy guarantees some sort of trust and undying loyalty is invalid- because many relationships exist (polygamist) where they are aware that there are other spouses and they still trust each other. Lying can happen regardless of one's relationship to the other. You said this is pretty much the same thing as premise 3- on what terms? Meaning trust will prevent divorce? Divorce is not the issue at hand- but romantic love with multiple partners is. As mentioned previously, trust does not always guarantee success in relationships. Arguing that divorce rates may be reduced and trust is not misused does not play a hand in who a person chooses to love. People don't make the choice to fall in love with someone, sometimes it is a matter of chance. Therefore, you can't help who, or, how many (in this case), you fall in love with (refer to my premise 7). You also mention that people could be "frantically running around saying who is the father of my child" which is a reach and also doesn't prove that the person in question doesn't love whoever the "father" may be, even if she has multiple partners. She could possibly love them all. Many spouses could also think of lies to tell their significant other on different matters. Such as money, work, vacation, their whereabouts, etc- and none of this could have anything to do with cheating or having another partner. People who are going to lie will do so regardless of the circumstance. A cheater can lie just as much if not less than someone who does not cheat/see other people. The premise doesn't argue the point that it's not possible to love more than one person at a time.
grilojo

Con

2. Yes, you are correct about people having different morals. However, They may have not been taught what is right and what is wrong by their parents or guardians growing up. My definition for morals is a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. Also according to major religions in the world, only one which is islam which you can marry more than 1 person. Morality has to do with everything with this topic because if you don't have compassion or morality. you cant be in a loving relationship.
3.Monogmous relationships keep people together. Many people agree that if you are only with one person at a time and commit to that person only that is the right thing to do. Yes every relationship has its arguments and rough patches but that doesn't that they should run off and see other people along with their current relationship. You can love more than 1 person yes, but that would fall under loving your grandma, mom, dad, sister, etc. You can only be romantically with one person at the same time.
6. You are correct that lying is in all relationships and that it doesn't guarantee a healthy relationship whether we like it or not. Many people believe that trust is the key to a healthy relationship. Also, there is nothing about divorce in this premise so that makes your argument about divorce for this is invalid for this premise. So you're also stating that if a person has sex with 10 people in a week and becomes pregnant, that that is morally right? If your dating someone or married, would you like this done to you or do you think thats the right thing? Please clarify. So yes This premise has everything to do with this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Clearys

Pro

2. Morals vary- they are not consistent among a group of individuals nor are they consistent in a relationship. Who is to say that your parents or guardians teach you "correct" morals of what constitutes "right" or "wrong"? You cannot say because, as you have mentioned people have different morals. This doesn"t make one more right than the other. Morals find their root in different cultures, religions, beliefs and theories. Therefore, there is no one "correct" way to be raised or taught. Morality also has a lot to do with social norms. Take these morals out of their context and place them in a different context and they may change completely. Since they are normative, they are part of a macro system, influenced by the media, big business, cultures, and belief systems. Morals adjust to fit societal standards. Hence, the argument that morals are central to this debate is flimsy. You cannot claim for one"s morals to be more justified or "right" than another"s, and therefore it is not a strong basis for an argument.

Also, on an extension of this, you mention that Islam is the only religion that allows you to have multiple spouses. Not only is this false, but as I mentioned several times in my argument, Mormons are polygamists. Mormonism is also a religion, commonly known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Therefore, more than one religion supports this perspective.

3. Just because many people agree that if you are committed to one person that it is the right thing to do, doesn't mean that it"s the case. For example, there are also people who believe relationships are more successful when each partner is able to do as they please. I could counter-argue your point by using the exact same example for polygamy or open relationships. The point I am making is that to say people "agree" or believe something is "right" is not a concrete basis for an argument. Just because someone says things should be a certain way does not mean that those things are true. Also, arguments and rough patches don"t mean people "run off" and cheat. By assuming that everyone who is seeing more than one person is cheating or leaving because they're relationship is unsatisfactory is wrong. Who is to say that if you love more than one person it can only be platonic or familial love? The way your argument is phrased makes it sound as if you are making these statutes. As if you are saying what is right and wrong. You are supplying no viable evidence for me to consider.

6. If you read through my argument again, you see I addressed your 3rd premise (which is about divorce) because it correlates with your 6th premise and the argument I was making to connect the two. So, yes, it is relevant to the argument because you used it in one of your premises. Also, again with the moral issue. Maybe in my morals it isn"t right, but for someone else it may not be a problem. The whole point of this debate is to not let my personal feelings about an issue cloud my judgement. That is also not the argument I am making, every time I begin to talk about loving more than one person you argue back that it is morals. You are missing the argument completely. Regardless of whether it is moral or immoral the person could still love more than one of the people she had relations with. Your morality argument does not prove its not possible to love more than one person, just because you do not believe it (or the norms morals do not support it). To answer your question, I would not like that done to me. This also is not about me- it is about a person having the ability to love more than one person at once. Making accusations as such does not add to your argument that it is not possible to love more than one person romantically.

If you want to discuss morals, I will inform you that from the beginning of time it was common for many cultures to have multiple wives or mistresses. There are still places in the world where this is widely accepted. As society progressed, polygamy was not favored in normative culture, however, this is exactly the example i'm trying to make. The majority did not always oppose polygamy, and since morals are reflective of society- they are always changing. Therefore, just because popular pinion sees something as immoral, does not make it so- and definitely does not mean it always was or will be.
grilojo

Con

2. Morals are taught from the moment you are born. In every culture, elders are suppose to teach their kids the ropes on how to be a good person and what is "right" or "wrong". Whether or not the kids abides by what they are taught is a totally separate issue. As you said, Morality has a lot to do with social norms so wouldn't wouldn't romantically loving only person fall under that category? Also if you believe its morally right to love more than one person romantically, look at the Tiger Woods situation a couple years ago. If its morally right why did he have to apologize for having sex with other women if its so morally right? So This claim makes perfect sense for this situation.

3. You are correct about the loving people platonically or familial. When in love with one person romantically you are allowed to love others but not in a romantic way. You can only love someone like a family member or as a friend because you will not be sexual active with a family member or a close friend. So that I believe is a solid enough statement to base this argument on for this premise

6. This claim also goes with claim 3 as you stated. I am not letting my personal views about this subject cloud my judgement. This topic has everything to do with morality and you should be able to understand that.You are right that It is okay to love more than one person but it is not ok for people to be in love with more than one person romantically.
Debate Round No. 3
Clearys

Pro

1. Romantic love is the expressive and pleasurable feeling from an emotional attraction towards another person.
2. An individual can feel an emotional or physical attraction to more than one person.
3. Individuals can be romantically in love with multiple people because of the nature of the law of attraction, which draws similar energies together and can encourage an emotional attraction to like minded individuals.
4. Open relationships exist as an agreement between two individuals that they can also see other people. Said relationships are built upon the terms that both parties can do what they please without telling one another.
5. Polygamous relationships involve having ore than one spouse at one time. There are many successful polygamous relationships, i.e the Brown family, a.k.a Sister Wives.
6. According to Psychology, it takes a fifth of a second to fall in love, so technically individuals can fall in love with more than one person and this can happen quite often if the right chemicals are induced in the brain, yet choosing their partner is up to them.
7. Romantic love and a monogamous relationship are not mutually exclusive. One can exist without the other, and are two separate entities.
8. Not all monogamous couples are romantically in love. Faithfulness to one person does not guarantee a loving relationship.
9. Therefore, it is possible for an individual to be in love with more than one person romantically

As aforementioned, I never said it was 'morally right" to love more than one person. What I merely said was that people's morals are different, there's not one that can be deemed "correct" or more right than another. The argument that loving more than one person is not morally right has no substance because, as I stated throughout my argument, morals aren't the issue. Just because something is the social norm, does not make it the universal rule or law for everyone to abide by. People defy "norms" all the time- that does not make it wrong.
I have not conceded on any of my premises because I think I have made it very clear throughout my argument why they support my conclusion. I, however, still do not see how morality is the actual issue here. When considering if it is actually possible, if people are emotionally capable of loving more than one person romantically- there is no need for a discussion of morality. It is the possibility, not the wrongness/rightness. If people were to base their arguments off of morals, there would be no conclusion, because it is not a definition people can universally agree on. Right or wrong is not the argument here. I stand by that in my conclusion.

For these reasons, and others I mentioned throughout the debate, it is not unreasonable to say that it is possible to have a concurrent romantic relationship. I have defined what romantic love is, and I have specified how individuals pursue multiple romantic relationships. The question here is if it is possible, not if it is right. Therefore, I conclude, based on my argument, that it is possible to be romantically in love with more than one person at the same time.
grilojo

Con

1. I agree with your definition of Romantic love is the expressive and pleasurable feeling from an emotional attraction towards another person.
2. It is morally wrong to be romantically in love with more than one person at once.
3. When in love with 1 person and one person chance of divorce drops drastically.
4. Monogamous relationships involve having only one spouse or significant other at one time. This type of relationship is found in most religions.
5.Being monogamous builds trust between the two mates.
6. Monogamy keeps everything in line and there is no reason to ever lie about anything.
7. Therefore, it is possible for an Individual to be in love with only one person

In my premises, I am defending that it is not okay to be romantically in love with more than one person. This debate has everything to do with ethics and with what is morally okay to do. In rounds 2 and 3 I cut it down to my best three arguments. I had to take away one of three arguments but my other two arguments had enough details and examples to be able to convince you that my side is the correct side. Thank you for your time and I hope you choose the Con side.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by PolitcsMaster 2 years ago
PolitcsMaster
ClearysgrilojoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the only one to use a source. Pro's arguments are more effective in countering his opponent's and bringing up his own.