The Instigator
atiyacole93
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Clearys
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once

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: 2/14/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 333 times Debate No: 70045
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

atiyacole93

Pro

1.The agreed definition of being romantically in love, is to express pleasurable feelings, while having emotional security and attraction towards another person.
2.Romantic love should not be confused with lust, infatuation, desired attraction, platonic love or the caring love for a family member or friend.
3.Love comes in a variety of forms. The many forms that love comes in proves that love is infinite even in the form of romance.
4.The human brain is not structured to have one single input at a time, or a filter to control its emotions and feelings that allows it to be romantically in love.
5.Loving more than one person at a time romantically does not have a valid law, or restriction in act of any violations.
6.Romantic love is labeled into a concept created by society called monogamy. When creating this label society did not place any regards for the psychological function of the human heart, or emotions of the functional human brain.
7.Scenario #1 Death: If a person is married or in a romantic relationship to a person who is now deceased, it is possible for them to still be romantically in love even though they are now widowed or single to the person that is dead. If the person finds a new spouse or partner, they still continue to be romantically in love with their dead lover, and their existing lover.
8.Scenario #2 Breakup or divorced: A person can still be romantically in love with a person that has choose to divorce or separate from them, without their mutual agreement. Person (A) can still be romantically in love with person (B), because person (B) dumped them. Because person (B) is now absent out of person (A) life, person (A) romantically can falls romantically in love with another person while still romantically loving person (B) since they are not over person (B) and their breakup.
9.The emotional attraction of being romantically in love causes a person to value another person"s trait and character. People are all different which means they all carry different traits and are all different in character. Multiple people at once can make a person fall romantically in love with them by valuing the different trait that each of them possess. One person may have a trait that is better than the other, thus making it hard for one person to romantically love only one at a time.
10.Scenario #3 trait and character: A women can romantically love two men at once, because one makes her laugh and have fun, while the other man makes feel comfortable and stimulated sexually.
11.Open relationships exist and can be successful given that the participants are willing to be open. This proves that just because the relationship is open doesn"t mean the participants are not romantically in love with one another, being that there is one or more persons involved.
12. Any person is capable of romantically being in love with more than one person at a time.
______________________________________________________________________________
13.Non-controversial: Premises 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are stating definitions and clarification of facts, therefore they do not need to be proven.
14.Controversial: Premises 6, 9 and 11 are based off of my opinion that"s why they are considered controversial. (11) I have never been in an open relationship so I am basing my opinion of its visual media success and its longevity in existence in the world today. Monogamy is a made up concept in my opinion, because love is infinite. (6) A person is allowed to romantically love anyone at any time, because it is a feeling that cannot be logically controlled. In order to explain this uncontrolled feeling with an explanation, it has been labeled monogamy. This word carries a negative connotation, when in fact loving two people romantically at once is not a negative action. (9) I believe the reason why people fall in love with another person is based on the persons personality. If there is more than one person that grabs a person"s heart, by having a compatible personality, they are capable of falling romantically in love more than once at one time. Premises 7, 8 and 10 are scenarios based of my emotions and feelings. They are considered controversial because another person may have a different opinion in the matter. (7) One may think that, because a person is now dead, they no longer feel romantically in love with them, since they cannot physically see them. (8) When going through a breakup, I can personally say that the feelings of being romantically in love, can take a while to subside as you"re getting over the other person in a relationship. These feeling do not restrict a person from dating and seeing other people that they fall in love with. (10) I believe that just, because it is more than one person satisfying the defined definition of the needs and want of being romantically in love, doesn"t mean that a person cannot be romantically in love with both at once.
Clearys

Con

1. I agree with the above definition of romantic love.
2.Romantic love enables two individuals to be committed to one another.
3. This commitment is possible with only one other individual because it involves chemistry, attachment, the time and energy, and the security needed to pursue a life together.
4. In order to properly describe romantic love, it is important to differentiate between love and lust. Lust is a craving of a sexual nature, which usually dissipates once gratified, but can return a few hours or days later. Love is an intense feeling of affection or care towards an individual. Lust is short-term, while love is a lifelong commitment to one person. It is possible to feel feelings of lust and attachment to other people, but this should not be confused for romantic love.
5. Chemistry and attraction produces feelings of lust, however, once those feelings disappear and we still feel deep affectionate for our partner, then it is love.
6. Love is honesty and a commitment that involves you putting your all into a relationship, therefore there is not enough time, nor does one have the energy and ability to love many romantically.
7. Psychologically, "loving" two people at the same time would cause dissonance and therefore extreme pain to an individual thinking about their partner with someone else. This also signals in the brain that something is amiss.
8. Research done on individuals who claim to love multiple partners shows that they created two personas, and treated each partner differently- making sure to separate the two. This experience is not only stressful but takes the pleasure out of any relationships.
9. The more you love a person, the more time and energy you will give them. Romantic love needs to be worked for, it is not readily available, and also not easy to find.
10. Concurrent love is problematic because it is not very stable, research done in Mormon communities shows that no family has successful reached the ideal of "loving everyone equally" for the long term.
11. Therefore, it is not possible to love more than one person romantically.

Non-controversial:
Premises 1, 2 3 and 7 & 8 because they are things we have agreed upon. Also, they have been studied in the field of psychology where there is much evidence against the possibility of concurrent relationships due to research.

Controversial:
Premise 4, because one could argue that relationships require both lust and love. However, lust is something we can feel with almost anyone we have chemistry with. It is immediate and fleeting, where love takes not only a place in our hearts but in our lives. Lust is based on the foundation of a physical attraction, which does not last. Love is built on a physical and emotional level, and provides both partners with fulfillment and the opportunity to create a lasting relationship on a stable foundation. Lust focuses on the surface value of a person while love digs deeper into the person.
Premise 5- again, the argument that both lust and love are mutual can be made. Although just because you are attached to someone and feel attracted o them does not indicate that you are indeed in love with that person. There is a difference.
Premises 6 and 7 may be controversial because they invoke time, which is perceived differently by different people. However, there literally is not enough time to put the proper energy and nurturing needed into a romantic relationship with more than one person.
Premise 10 can be argued but it is based on research done on concurrent relationships, which are mostly unsuccessful and very few have lasted. It places a lot of stress and tension on the relationship and forces the individual in question to balance two separate relationships. It becomes more of a task than a loving experience between two individuals, which makes it very difficult to not only maintain but to gain fulfillment from it. Most people have sought the love of a singular partner after failing to create a stable concurrent relationship. Thus supporting the argument that success of romantic concurrent relationships it's not possible because a person can not supply the necessary needs to their partner(s).

I would like to point out here that the argument is being romantically in love with multiple people at the same time, meaning at once. Therefore your premise 7 cannot hold, as it uses instances that involve falling in love at different points in life when an individual has loved before. Although this is possible, it does not apply to the current argument and is not relevant. Once someone passes we cannot nurture the relationship as we once had, and it is no longer in the present.
Debate Round No. 1
atiyacole93

Pro

1.Although your arguments can be considered true, I have some disagreements. Romantic love does not mean commitment, nor was it specified in the agreed upon definition. While being romantically in love no one person is subjected to being committed to just one person at a time.
2.In reference to your premise (3) chemistry can be created with more than one individual at a time. This is because time and energy can be distributed into an infinite amount outlets depending on the person"s skill to multitask. The human brain As a college student we are able to go to school, join activities, do homework, study , go to work and still have time for our friends family members and social life. All of these task require time and energy, in which the student finds time to achieve them all. Therefore being involved romantically with multiple people can still allow a person to gain chemistry by devoting their time and energy to more than one person. This is also shown through the example of a wife loving and taking care of her husband and children. Both task require time and energy in which helps them have a complete family to pursue life together.
3.In reference to your premise (4) I do agree with the definition of lust and love. However while lust is a short-term action, love can be long-term action, but does not have to be a lifelong commitment. This could be explain in my premise (7), the death scenario. When a person in a romantic relationship dies they can no longer be committed life-long to a deceased partner, because they no longer exist. Even though the deceased partner is dead the living partner is still in love with them romantically, just not committed to them anymore.
4.The argument of my premise (7) can hold because it does relate to the topic of being romantically in love with multiple people at the same time, meaning at once. For example a person can be romantically in love with two people they meet at once, such as a boyfriend and their husband. One of those two people can suddenly die one day. That doesn"t not mean the person is not still romantically in love with the now dead person and the living person at the same time. The living person can still have these feelings for both people even though one is now dead. This can also go back to the agreed upon definition of being romantically in love. Although the person is now deceased, they still gave the living person pleasurable feelings, emotional security and they grabbed the attention of attraction of the person who is still living, which caused them to fall romantically in love. I do agree that once someone passes they cannot nurture the relationship as they once had with the deceased person, but this only gives the two people that are living and advantage to now be the only two nurturing one another in the relationship without multitasking. Just because someone is no longer present, it does not stop the emotional feelings of the defined emotions of being romantically in love.
5.The action of giving a person your all is based on the character of the person who is giving it. A person with strong multitasking skills may be able to make both of their partners in the relationship feel like they are giving 100% of their time and energy to both of them. For instance if a person is romantically in love with a person who has a busy schedule, but still finds time to squeeze in quality time with that person when they are not busy, shows the effort of the two people giving their all to each other in the relationship since they are spending quality time when they are not busy. Another factor is that giving your all to a person has no clear guidelines, what may seem like giving your all to one person can seem like giving a little of yourself to another.
6.In reference to your premise (8) I do agree that the situation of romantically loving two people at once can be a stressful or an unpleasable relationship, just as if a person was romantically loving one person at once. However that does not mean that their emotional feelings of being romantically in love has vanished.
7.Romantic love can be achieved with any amount of time and number of people depending on the participants. As you pointed out in your premises (5) as long as the people have chemistry and are willing to participate it can be possible.
Clearys

Con

Although I see your argument, I said it enables people to be committed to one another. Meaning, that being romantically in love with someone is conducive to a committed relationship. I never said commitment was a requirement.
Premise (3) I concede on chemistry, because I do agree with your point that you can have chemistry with multiple people. However, chemistry is different in different circumstances. I have chemistry with my closest friends, because we get along and we compliment each other very well. I have chemistry with my family members because we all get along. Chemistry, by definition, is not what love is. Although I am conceded on behalf of your argument, I do argue further that it doesn"t necessarily mean chemistry between two people who love each other romantically. Also, back to my argument of it isn"t actually possible to have multiple long term relationships because of the amount of energy it takes. its physically and emotionally draining. You compare it to school, yes, but those things are all different. As a student, having many different responsibilities is both challenging and rewarding, as it creates balance. Exerting the same energy and time on different people would create an imbalance. As for the wife and children example, it further proves that chemistry is not confined to loving, as the chemistry within the family proves to create a healthy environment between all members. This argument is not about platonic love, it is about romantic love.
Your argument (7) that once someone passes it is possible to fall in love again is a a good argument. However, the debate is actually about being romantically in love with two people simultaneously, meaning at the same time. This does not concern losing a loved one or breaking up with them- in this case there is no end to the relationship. By this alone, I stand by my argument that loving more than one person simultaneously is not emotionally or physically possible. Your argument about the death scenario cannot stand because although it may be the case sometimes, in this argument it is not relevant. We are arguing for whether is possible for these relationships to be concurrent.
I am having trouble with understanding how a deceased love one can mean that you're romantically in love with multiple people. Once someone passes, we can still love them, but, like you mentioned, it is not able to be nurtured. Romantic love needs to constantly be nurtured and tended to. You may still have love and care for the deceased person but that does not mean you"re romantically in love with them anymore. Many people have remarried after losing a loved one, and they have created a new life with this person, holding the other person in their hearts but also understanding that moving on is part of healing. I don"t agree with it still being romantic love, because you cannot nurture this relationship. Also, when someone passes, you are no longer "loving them", because they are not on this earth, so you would have "loved them". It is past tense and no longer currently something you are able to act upon. Hence, arguing that you can love someone romantically who has passed just as much as you love someone you are now with and spending all of your time and energy on, is not substantial. In order to let a new relationship form, the old wound ha to heal through the process of letting go, if we were arguing for the case of death.
We can argue that these things are subjective, according to your premise (5), which they are in some cases. If that's the case, maybe given a little of themselves is jut enough, because its subjective. We can"t say either way if it is or isn"t enough. However, I am confused by what you're saying here and am under the impression that you are almost arguing my point for me. Someone who is very busy and still makes time for their loved one- is able to make what little extra time they have available. Thus, according to your statement, they would have literally no other time to dedicate to someone else, without sacrificing time with their other partner.
For a relationship to flourish, a couple needs to find common ground. A stressful relationship causes tension, and ties to break. Which very well can lead to falling out of love with that person. I understand your point of maybe not losing the feeling of romantic love, however, I state that loving two people causes someone to create two personas. This is because they have to be in love with two different people, and keep those lives separate.
I disagree with thisstatement regarding my premise (5), since I have cleared up and corrected my definition of chemistry. However, romantic love requires so much of oneself, almost like sacrificing half of you to become one whole with another person, that it would not be possible to romantically love more than one person at a time. You have to dedicate yourself to someone, and be willing to give them more than you would give anyone else in order to have a fulfilling romantic relationships. It is not possible to supply this love and fulfillment to multiple people, as it is too emotionally taxing on an individual. For someone to be able to pursue a romantic and loving relationship, they need to be able to put forth the time, effort and have emotional stability. Being in concurrent relationships would prove to be very unstable, causing the relationship to be short lived. You cannot put forth the same effort for two separate people, there would not be enough time. Unless you were putting in no effort at all, which would then suggest that you may not love either individual, as you are not willing to put forth what it takes to sustain the relationship at whatever cost.
Debate Round No. 2
atiyacole93

Pro

When forming any type of relationship either romantically love or not, the participants have the option of commitment. As you agreed commitment is not a requirement, it is only a practice that people can choose to have in their relationship. I do concede that commitment in a relationship of romance can be help make the outcome better but it is not required. However being committed doesn"t not require faith or binds to one single person. An individual can be committed to multiple people and things. For example a student who works is committed to their job and their school work alongside with other responsibilities they may have. A person can have a romantic relationship with more than one person and be committed to them both them, because commitment is just simply showing devotion. Showing devotion does require time and energy, but as I said in reference to your premise (3) time and energy can be shared evenly with multitasking.
3. Loving multiple people can be compared to being a student, because it to is both challenging and rewarding. I agree that spreading your time and energy between the multiple individuals, can be challenging, but it is possible. Romantically loving multiple people at once is also rewarding, because you get the best of both worlds. While one person may provide you pleasurable feelings more than the other, the other person may give you emotional security. Both of these feelings are both rewarding.
7. I still stand by my argument of romantically loving someone who is deceased and someone who is living at the same time, because it is relevant. Although you are stating that the topic relates to being in love simultaneously it still applies, because a person is still caring the same emotion that is defined as romantic love for both people, living and dead at once. Romantic love is and emotion that cannot be turned off instantly. If a women"s husband died yesterday, she is still in love with him today. Those feelings defined as romantic love are still present. Even though the husband is dead the women still can feel the emotions of pleasurable feelings, while having emotional security and attraction towards him through his memory and gaining all the nurturing she needs through his memories as well. Alongside having these feelings for her deceased husband, she can have the same feelings for someone else who is living. Thus making it possible to be romantically in love with two people at once. I do understand your point, however your point would only be relevant if the topic related to dating, because it is impossible to date a dead person, while dating a living person at the same time. Since romantic love is only an emotion my premise (7) is possible. Romantic love being and emotion also brings me to the argument of still being romantically in love with a person who has dumped you, while being romantically loving someone else. As I stated before romantic love is an emotion. If someone gets dumped they can still possess the emotional feelings of romantic love while, having the same feeling for someone else at the same time.
Loving two different people doesn"t necessarily mean they have to keep separate lives, we see this being shown through open relationships and Mormon marriages. Thus proving it"s possible to romantically love more than one person at a time without creating different persona"s, and lack of effort time, energy and commitment.
Clearys

Con

The student example that you keep pushing in your argument does not actually prove anything. being a student and balancing that lifestyle is a lot different than being in a relationship. Relationships require a lot more emotional energy than schoolwork, work and social activities. To say that loving multiple people is comparable to a student that has many responsibilities is not an accurate comparison. The two are very different.

I do not agree that multiple relationships can be more rewarding than one. The idea of a relationship is that you get out of it what you put into it. If you cannot put your entire self into a relationship, and give a person all the time and affection that they deserve, the relationship will not be as fruitful in return. In order to be in love with two relationships, if I were to humor your argument for the sake of my own, then a person would have to seriously decrease their time with each partner just to make sure they have enough time for both. That being said, they wouldn't have enough time to do al the things they need to do to nurture a loving relationship. So, yes, maybe someone can find time to spend with multiple people, but that does not mean that they love them, or that said time is sufficient for a successful loving relationship.

Although you are arguing your point that we can still be romantically in love with deceased. According to our agreed upon definition of romantic love, which is "express pleasurable feelings, while having emotional security and attraction towards another person." This premise would not hold. A deceased loved one cannot provide you with emotional security, nor can they provide you with anything. On the basis of this definition, then it is not possible for one to be romantically in love with both their new spouse/partner and the deceased. Also, if you were to still hold feelings for someone in your past, it is highly likely you are not fully giving yourself to your new partner and are therefore not capable of loving them. In order to completely immerse oneself in a loving relationship, it would require an individuals full devotion to said relationship. As I have stated throughout this entire argument, no one person has the time, energy, or emotionally stability to love multiple people simultaneously and have a loving and long lasting relationship. Regardless of the argument of time, having multiple relationships would actually require you to create different personas because everyone is different. You have to act differently towards different people in order to cater to the relationship. Thus creating different personas. Keeping those two lives separate requires constant time and energy, and forces an individual to keep the personalities, memories, anniversaries, etc. also separate.

Regardless of Mormon marriages and open relationships, there is still an idea of separateness. Open relationships exist on the agreement that the partners are allowed to do what they please, this does not mean they they discuss any of this or know what the other is up to. In Mormon marriages, the wives have different responsibilities in most environments, and the husband seeks them out separately for each of these things. One may be the character, one may be in charge of cooking, cleaning, picking the children up from school. This separateness enables the husband to act differently towards each different partner. As far as love is concerned, everyone has different needs. I am most compatible with someone who's needs are very similar to mine, which attracts me to them and also make the relationship much more enjoyable, where I don't have to be something I am not. However, once you deviate form that and try and hold concurrent relationships, you find that peoples needs differ greatly. What your one partner may love the other will hate, trying to keep up with that or remember would not be conducive to a loving romantic relationship. It could actually do more harm than good. Thus, loving more than two people romantically at the same time would not be possible.
Debate Round No. 3
atiyacole93

Pro

The meaning of being romantically in love, is to express pleasurable feelings, while having emotional security and attraction towards another person. This should not be confused with lust, infatuation, desired attraction or platonic love.
2.Love is infinite which allows a person"s heart and emotion to express romantic love for more than one person at one time.
3.Being romantically in love allows a person to emotionally form the feeling of being romantically in love with more than one person simultaneously whether they are dead, alive, divorced broken up or separated. The emotion of romantic love also allows these feeling to be possess inside of a person for a period of time, even if they are not committed within their relationship.
4.You don"t necessarily have to be involved in a relationship to be romantically in love with a person, for being romantically in love is just a feeling that does not hold a contract or a rule. However, time and energy invested into a person to create chemistry is conducive to falling romantically in love with a person, and that can be achieved through multitasking and devoting yourself to all of them at once. Thus making it possible for anyone to be romantically in love with multiple people at once.
5.Open relationships, and Mormon marriages are proof that it is possible to be romantically in love with multiple people and succeed long-term.
6.Loving multiple people romantically at once is possible, and has been done throughout the history of life.
Clearys

Con

1. I agree with the above definition of romantic love.
2.Romantic love enables two individuals to be committed to one another.
3. This commitment is possible with only one other individual because it involves chemistry, attachment, the time and energy, and the security needed to pursue a life together.
4. In order to properly describe romantic love, it is important to differentiate between love and lust. Lust is a craving of a sexual nature, which usually dissipates once gratified, but can return a few hours or days later. Love is an intense feeling of affection or care towards an individual. Lust is short-term, while love is a lifelong commitment to one person. It is possible to feel feelings of lust and attachment to other people, but this should not be confused for romantic love.
5. Chemistry and attraction produces feelings of lust, however, once those feelings disappear and we still feel deep affectionate for our partner, then it is love.
6. Love is honesty and a commitment that involves you putting your all into a relationship, therefore there is not enough time, nor does one have the energy and ability to love many romantically.
7. Psychologically, "loving" two people at the same time would cause dissonance and therefore extreme pain to an individual thinking about their partner with someone else. This also signals in the brain that something is amiss.
8. Research done on individuals who claim to love multiple partners shows that they created two personas, and treated each partner differently- making sure to separate the two. This experience is not only stressful but takes the pleasure out of any relationships.
9. The more you love a person, the more time and energy you will give them. Romantic love needs to be worked for, it is not readily available, and also not easy to find.
10. Concurrent love is problematic because it is not very stable, research done in Mormon communities shows that no family has successful reached the ideal of "loving everyone equally" for the long term.
11. Therefore, it is not possible to love more than one person romantically.

After both m opponent and I made our arguments, I have not conceded on any of my premises. As a result of my opponents arguments and claims, and my counter-arguments, I stand by my conclusion that being in love romantically with multiple people at the same time is not possible.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.