Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once?
Debate Rounds (4)
2.Romantic love is similar to family love but includes more intense feelings of passion, intimacy and commitment to an individual. This is the ethical definition of romantic love. Example: boyfriend or husband.
3.Romantic love is composed of three elements which are attachment, caring and intimacy.
4.There are two kinds of romantic love which is compassionate and passionate. Compassion develops out of feelings of mutual understanding and shared respect with one another. Passion plays in with the intense emotions, sexual attraction, anxiety and affection towards another person.
5.Since there are two kinds of romantic loves which is compassionate and passionate love. Gives a high possibility of loving more than one person but can be romantically loved differently.
6.The action of cheating also justifies the ability of romantically loving more than one person at once.
7.As long as the partner is okay with giving permission in the relationship of having multiple people is okay. There are cases where romantic relationship occur between three people all together.
8.Each partner that an individual have does not have to play the same role as the second or third partner. Each person can have a different purpose in the romantic love triangle.
9.Romantic love is a feeling that we seek for the comfort and security it gives us.
10.Therefore there is no wrong in wanting to feel comfort more than once at the same time, romantically.
Non- Controversial Premises:
Premises 1 and 2 are non- controversial because the definitions are clear and given, were as we both opponents agree upon.
Premises 7 and 8 is non-controversial because as long as the couple allow and are okay with the action of having a romantic love triangle it is okay to romantically love more than one person at once.
Premises 9 is non- controversial because each individual is entitled to satisfy their needs in a good way, when they want to.
Premises 3 and 4 because my opponent and I have not yet agreed on those added definitions of romantic love. The reason why I defined it in a more complex, divided way is to be able to understand the element to the feelings of romantic love. Because the way it is defined on premises 2 is too broad.
Premises 6 can actually occur the situation as to where cheating might not involve the feeling of being romantically in love with that second person.
Premises 10 can be controversial because some might not see loving romantically at the same time as a moral right act.
2.I agree with this definition of romantic love.
3.I agree with the components of romantic love and what it entails.
4.For premise 4 and 5, I agree that there are two kinds of romantic love, compassionate and passionate love.
6. I disagree with the act of cheating justifying the ability to romantically love more than one person at once. It is impossible for someone to have feelings of romantic love for someone other than their significant other, and if that may be the case, then it was never romantic love to begin with.
7. I understand that there are cases where people may be okay with the fact that there is a relationship triangle, especially if it is only involving sexual relations. I also understand that sex plays an important role in a romantic relationship, but if you have a situation like the relationship triangle there is no possible way that all of the members of this triangle could feel all of the components of romantic love; which include commitment, passion, etc.
8. If each person has a different purpose in the romantic triangle and if it is possible that they all may not have the same level of importance to each other then how is each person in the relationship triangle said to be having feelings of romantic love. As we agreed upon in your premise 1 and 2, "romantic love includes feelings of passion, intimacy, and commitment to an individual". So if this is true and if all of the people included in the relationship triangle are romantically in love and supposed to be committed to and individual, then aren"t they all cheating on each other?
9. I agree with romantic love existing as a feeling of comfort and security, but only existing to be shown towards one person.
10. I disagree and I stand firm to my argument, it is absolutely wrong to be romantically in love with more than one person at once. Romantic love is meant only to be shared between two people that feel passion, commitment, and intimacy towards one another.
7: I understand your point and were you"re going with not being able to be felt the same type of romantic love between a love triangles. But it is still considered as romantic love because it can be directed slightly different for each partner, it also is still considered as romantic love even if it might be passionate or compassionate. Once all agree upon sharing those romantic feeling amongst one another, it makes the act of being able to romantically love more than one person at the same time possible!
8: To answer your first question of how is each person in the relationship triangle said to be having feelings of romantic love, it is related to the more complex part of romantic love which is divided into two components as I mentioned above of compassionate and passionate love. For your second question yes, we agreed on premises 1 and 2 but you forgot to add that the romantic love we defined is the ETHICAL definition of romantic love. So therefore it is not considered as cheating because we agreed on additional definitions of romantic love which was that it is composed of two: compassionate and passionate. So each partner can be romantically loved, but directed differently and there is no wrong if there is permission within their love triangle.
9: Since you agree with romantic love existing as a feeling of comfort and security, then why it can only be shown towards one person? If every individual is entitled to satisfy their own need any time they want and how many times they want, and more if lovers gives him the opportunity and permission to do so.
10: Yes romantic love it is MORALLY meant only to be shared between two people, but every individual has liberty into satisfy their emotional, physical needs as they please and no one has yet been punished to romantically love more than one person at the same time.
7. If we both agreed upon the components of romantic love and if it has been made clear that these components of romantic love are meant to be between two people, then why is there a third person to be added. Romantic love is feeling the intimacy, passion, and commitment towards that person (between two people). So now if you"re trying to say that it"s possible for those components to be distributed amongst those three people and each person has their own component of our definition of romantic love, then this cannot and does not fulfill our definition. Romantic love is feeling ALL THREE towards one person (between two people), not intimacy for one person, commitment, for another, and passion for the other. It is either romantic love (all three components) or it isn"t.
8. If in the love triangle there has been granted permission to have other romantic partners then that doesn"t even fulfill our definition of romantic love. Because if all three of these people in this relationship triangle are dealing with each other, it violates our definition which included commitment. Commitment, meaning being faithful and loyal towards one person (with only two people involved). You cannot be committed to more than one person in a relationship because commitment requires faithfulness and loyalty. So as it pertains to this relationship triangle you continue to refer to, there is no way that all three of these people are romantically in love with each other because they are each lacking one of the main components of romantic love (commitment) simply turning it into lust or infatuation.
9. The fact that I agreed with you saying that romantic love exists as a feeling of comfort and security, does not prove that it can be shown towards multiple people. Like I said previously in my point above, without commitment this cannot be considered romantic love. As it pertains to the relationship triangle, those people all feel lust or infatuation towards one another because they are all satisfying the passion and intimacy, but lacking the commitment to each other which means that their relationship is not based on romantic love.
10. I acknowledge that nobody has been punished for these actions and I accept that every individual has the liberty to satisfy their emotional and physical needs BUT if that is the case and if they are capable of going outside of their relationship to seek something in someone else other than their significant other, then we simply cannot consider their feelings for each other romantic love. As I said in my above points, romantic love is meant to include all three components as we agreed upon and if those actions happen then it violates our understanding of romantic love.
7: The reason why a third person is added because I am trying to prove that it is possible to love more than one person at once and a third person is a great example. Both of us know that there are many love triangle were all three individuals romantically love one another equally and share their personal space with each other. Also it is romantic love have those three components of passion, intimacy and commitment, as well as that there are two type of romantic love which are compassionate and passionate which we agreed upon. I don"t understand why you"re confused within who that person shares it with or not, it"s a fact that you can romantically love more than one person at once. You can love one passionately and the other compassionately as how I defined what each meant in premises 4 and 5.
8: Commitment does not only have to be done between two people, many working groups in companies or organizations are committed to what they have to do. Why can that not exist between more than two people? Also once there is permission and clarification between all that are involved in romantic love there is not wrong to address if all have agreed.
9: Again that is why I added the definition that romantic love is composed of two kind: passionate and compassionate. So you can be able to understand that you can love romantically, but in two kinds of ways and if you love passionately that does not justify that commitment isn"t being promises. They are two kinds of romantic love that can be expressed differently, it does not void any other promises that have occurred between couples. Also you and I cannot say what those kind of commitments are, because there are many kind of commitments.
10: We can consider their feelings for each other romantic love because how about if it last as a romantic love for more than 5 years, and in this life time you and me know about many situation that this have occurred. Those actions does not violate all three components of romantic love of passion, intimacy and commitment because we agreed that there are two kinds of romantic love which is compassionate and passionate and within both plays the three components of intimacy, passion and commitments.
7. The reason why this premise doesn"t make sense is because if your definitions of the two separate parts of romantic love don"t match our initial definition then how can we determine what is or isn"t romantic love? We stated that romantic love will always include the component of commitment. If you want to say that someone feels passionate love towards another person (intimacy and passion) then that"s exactly what it is. IT IS JUST PASSIONATE LOVE. At that point it cannot be considered romantic love if you fail to accept the component of commitment to be included in that. And because you can"t accept that commitment should remain the same throughout all of your extra definitions, then you cannot determine that person"s relationship as being based on romantic love. It is just considered passionate love; passion, intimacy, and sexual and physical attraction.
8. Making reference to working groups in companies and organizations is not related to our topic. Being committed to a job is far different than being committed to a person. The fact that you are trying to distribute commitment between three people is impossible. Commitment in a relationship is between two people. It is an understanding that they have within their relationship to remain faithful and loyal to one another. Being faithful to your partner does not include a third person. If your example of this relationship triangle violates that (which it does) then their relationship between one another cannot be considered romantic love.
9. Again, as said in my points above it doesn"t matter what the extent of the commitments are and what they entail. Commitment is commitment, between two people for one another to provide stability and strength in the foundation of the relationship. This cannot be done if there is a third person in the equation, especially if you include passionate love in the explanation.
10. Like I said before passionate love is solely based on sexual attraction, lust and infatuation. What about that tells you its love? What about that sounds like ROMANTIC love? Romantic love as we defined before Is passion, intimacy, AND commitment! You cannot consider a three way relationship as romantic love because they cannot all be committed to each other.
8: I know the organization and companies are not related to our topic, but they are examples of my explanation that commitment can be done with whomever and under any conditions. Also being faithful to your partner does include a third person because remember we are arguing about the possibility of romantically loving mutual people at the same time!
9: Your thought of commitment existing only between two people is wrong because everyone is entitled to commit to how much people he or she would like. So therefore you can commit to more than one person, probably with different intentions but it is still commitments.
To conclude to the act of being able to romantically love more than one person at once it is in fact possible and based on my well defined definitions of romantic love which my partner agreed on as well indicates that my conclusion is correct. All my premises give concrete explained example of love triangles that occur day to day life and the reasons why cheating occurs between couples is also defined and solves based on the correction that it is possible to romantically love more than one persona at the same time and that sets a closure to my position.
8. I know that we are debating on the possibility of it being done at the same time, but all of your premises and explanations do not completely prove that to be the case.
9. But because commitment is within the definition of romantic love, which we agreed was between two people then we must consider commitment in the same sense. And the commitment we are speaking about when we refer to romantic love are obviously commitments of love, faithfulness, loyalty and nothing outside of that.
My opponent and I have both posed some very good arguments for each other. Although, my opponent"s premises may have been strong in the beginning, she failed to maintain the meaning of romantic love by including her own definitions of compassionate love and passionate love. Therefore, because my opponent"s definitions of passionate love do not coincide with our initial definition of romantic love it does not prove her argument right. It cannot be possible to romantically love more than one person at once. (as it pertains to our definition)
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.