Maybe in a world where they were used to not sharing, but if they grew up knowing no different why would they resent it?
Its not a question of learning to share, its a question of being aware of your own rights. I make no apologies for being materialistic about it either. If someone brings children into the world with one wife/husband they have no right to be taking resources away from those children by indulging in polygamy.
You would have resnted seeing your half sisters or brothers taken care of in the event of a divorce with spouse number 2? or would you have seen half brothers and sisters as deserving it too?
I wouldn't have resented my half brothers and sisters taken care of, but I would have resented spouse number 2 long before half brothers and sisters arrived.
I mean I also personally think the division of assets at times is pathetically humongous for no real reason.
Its unavoidable in the event of a divorce, but there you have to weigh up the potential harm done to the children by forcing two adults that are incompatible to carry on living together. In the case of polygamy, it is totally avoidable - just don't legalise it.
Taking assets into consideration, In a mistress/affair situation the mistress could be known, and accepted by the wife, she could have kids of her own, but neither she nor the kids in question have any legal rights when it comes to pretty much anything.
I don't think that's true. Once somebody is named as the father on the birth cert, he is liable for child support regardless of whether he is married to the mother. The rights of children from spouse number 2 wouldn't change by changing the mother's legal status from mistress to wife. The rights of children by spouse number 1 would just be downgraded.
Maybe, as I said to Iris I am hashing things out in my head right now. But I think I am still leaning towards people have a right to choose what kind of marriage they want, and having legal protection even if they don't choose the traditional.
An adults right to choose stops when it impacts on the lives of their children.
I can see the same arguements being used by anti gay marriage people, and anti gay adoption people.
I don't think my arguments could be used against gay adoption, but against gay marriage, yes. I've no problem with civil partnerships which give gay couples the same rights to tax breaks, etc, but gay marriage is silly. Some traditions have good reasons behind them and restricting marriage to one man/one woman is IMO, one of them.