Not in my view, no. Both are sad. I think we might finally have achieved clarity here.
Except that you can't even say which is worse. Which *I* find sad. Presence of betrayal, vs absence of betrayal. Presence of dishonesty vs absence of dishonesty. Can't figure out which is worse. I guess it's typical of Christian morality not to be particularly concerned about dishonesty, in relationships or otherwise, but still...
Should we extend this principle to contract law, such that if both parties agree to change the terms of the contract, they're both considered to be legally in breach of contract?
You're moving the goalposts by bringing the assignation of blame into it. I haven't suggested that a non-willing participant of an extra-marital affair is guilty of anything.
So the one who betrays his or her spouse and has an affair behind their back isn't to blame? Good to know. I guess that makes sense it's just the sex itself that's the problem, though...but didn't you say that wasn't the case?
Anyway, you don't seem to have understood what I was saying at all. I'll try again. If the one who breaks a marriage by having a clandestine affair is guilty of doing so, and if - as you characterized it - a mutual decision to allow such things is similar in that respect, then both parties are guilty of the same thing: Breaking the marriage agreement. I'm just asking you whether this principle is an ad-hoc thing that you only apply in the case of marriages, or whether you think it should apply to contract law as well. Makes sense to be consistent, right?
Of course it's more than sex, but they're very closely linked.
So, you can't imagine loving someone as a partner while not being restricted to them sexually. Love and sex are indeed very closely tied for you. I used to feel that way, from my teens to early 20's. Then I got into a relationship that lasted years, and we developed a bond more tied to who we are and what we value about each other than about what we did with our genitals. Maybe you'll have that kind of love sometime too.
"Bigot' is a really pointless, generic insult, in my view. It can be levelled at anyone who doesn't agree with you.
"You and your ilk sicken me" is similar in that respect, except that it justifies the charge of bigotry.