Sure it does. Deterrent. The is the reason for locking people up for any crime. No deterrent naturally leads to more of the same behavior. If there is no punishment, there is more likihood of the objectionable, damaging to others, and illegal act being committed.
The idea of elevating that moral failing to a criminal level doesn't make any sense.
If I have a weakness for stealing, heroin, or nude pictures of little kids, etc, etc, ... it is both a moral failure and crime. As a matter of fact, most crimes are the result of moral failures.
Saying that once you get married you should do everything to make it work doesn't make much sense either.
Maybe to you it doesn't. It makes perfect sense to me.
Most people have never done everything possible towards any end in their lives: why should marriage be different?
Be content to do everything half-assed? Is that really your official position on the matter?
Marriage requires a similar worldview and aligned goals, as well as aligned values. To me, saying that someone should do 'everything' possible, in light of the fact that overwhelmingly nobody does everything possible towards any goal in their life, makes it an unrealistic standard.
What, in prticular, do you consider unrealistic actions to preserve the sanctit of marriage? What things shoudl we refuse to do?
I think people should do a lot thats practical, but that's different than saying they should do everything that's possible.
Marriage is the largest committment you can make, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that each party should do everything in their power to meet their committment to their family. Why do you find the suggestion so repugnant?
Nobody needs to have sex outside of marriage, certainly. But that's not to say it doesn't happen. And in separating needs from wants, maybe somebody genuinely needs the emotional and physical affection that their spouse isn't giving them (for whatever reason).
Do they, or is that an overused rationale for bad behavior?
I agree its wrong, but don't overstate it. The fact that a man cheats on his wife means that he made a very bad decision, but that very bad decision doesn't necessarily mean that his wife is a completely innocent victim.
If she was faithful, then she was an innocent victim to that particular crime.
It appears that you are taking the "there is no such thing as an innocent person" angle on this issue. This is the same angle used by some bank robbers, inside traders, serial killers, etc. Just because everyone is not as pure as the driven snow does not give one a right to hurt them.
I agree we should strive for personal excellence, though thats not to say personal perfection.
What is wrong with striving for personal perfection? Even if it cannot be attainted, what is wrong with striving for it? Aim high, and you might suprise yourself with your potential. "Nobody's pefect" isn't an excuse for anything. If you are an adult, you know right from wrong. There is nothing "imperfect" about doing what you know is wrong, in advance of doing it. It is premeditated, and not an accident. Imperfect is missing a free throw. imperfect is backing the car into the mailbox. Imperfect is not screwing someone other than you spouse. That is intentionally malicious.
A person who is a perfectly good spouse for a decade or more, loyal and sincere, can make some very bad choices for very bad reasons, for example, and enter into a relationship with another person. I don't think that automatically makes them a vile and subhuman person, nor do I automatically think that their cheated-upon spouse is necessarily an innocent victim.
Again, are you using the terrorist definition of "innocent" (as in nobody is), or are you implying that the spouse held a gun to your head and told you to do it. Those really are the only two ways that the spouse could be "guilty" of your infidelity. Otherwise, they are indeed innocen to the act.
The repercussions for doing a wrong thing (like cheating on my wife) is that she leaves me and costs me that marriage.
Sure, but what if you wanted out anyway? Should there really be no repucussions for intentionally hurting another? There should be absolutely zero penalty for breaking marriage vows. What then is the point of marriage if it may be adhered to or deviated from at will. Are you making the assertion that the whole concept is obsolete, as it may be dissolved without penalty as soon as you see a 21 year old hot piece of tail? If so, I disagree.
Like I said, there is no benefit nor penalty financially to what I am saying: each party gets the 1/2 they already owned anyway. Why is this controversial?
Because the at fault party should not get "half", as this would imply no fauly nor penalty nor obligation to the dissollusive act which was done with the knowledge that it was wrong (unless the person can make a case of being mentally incompetent). This is why I think "no-fault" divorce should be abolished. You either take the wedding vows for better or worse, or you don't take them at all. This is marriage, not a book of the month club membership.
And why is there a presumption that a cheated-upon spouse somehow deserves some benefit above and beyond the 1/2 of the property that they already own, anyway?
Because an atrocity was committed upon that spouse, and as a victim, compensation is due, and as a perpetrator, responsibility is due. Anything less provides for adultery as "a quickie divorce", and futher leads to the erosion of marriage. As you have adeptly pointed out, the lack of a deterrence leads otherwise rational people to do things they know are wrong without regard for others. That's a bad thing.
You are giving too much credit to a cheated upon spouse.
No, I am using a cliche'. Namely "two wrongs don't make a right". And why, exactly, do we presume a cheated on spouse to be creditless?
Such as the example I used in the previous post. Should one be allowed to rob a bank which has a corrupt CEO? If so, almost every bank could legally be robbbed.
I'm not sure I agree with that logic. Actually, I'm pretty sure I don't.
They get what they deserve, nothing more. This dynamic works to both spouses advantage. It is fair.
It is fair? The person who knowingly does the most damaging thing that can be done to a marriage gets the exact same treatment as the person who does not commit that act? That's fair? Well heck, why bother trying to work at the marriage at all? You need some nookie and want the b***h gone, go bang some chick and call the whole thing off. Yikes! And we wonder why hole the country is headed down.
Fair?
Forgive me in advance if I oppose your nomination to the Supreme Court should that situation ever arise.