We're talking about adultery here; unless there's an adultery bar where married people can hook up, there's nothing analagous to gay bars.
> People are free to believe that gay bars, adultery, eating pork, etc. are immoral behavior. But there’s no justification for criminalization.
Once again, I point out that the consequences of adultery are objective harm on children. That was my entire point - that adultery is not a victimless crime.
Now look, I'm not making a judgement call on whether infidelity is immoral or not, I'm just pointing out that it frequently does result in measurable harm to any children involved.
In fact, in my first post I literally said that if there's no children, then I don't see a problem. You are presenting exceedingly unlikely scenarios[1] in support of ... what, exactly?
That any children involved aren't harmed by adultery?
After all, whether it is moral or not is irrelevant to the argument, so I see no point in discussing that aspect.
[1] For example, an adulter being punished by law while simultaneously managing to keep their family in the dark. Granted, it can happen, but that's really not likely at all.
In countries like Saudi Arabia, there are religious police who patrol public spaces looking for, among other things, married people who interact with members of the opposite sex.
It’s not some kind of outlandish example, this happens today. A woman hanging out with a male co-worker could get charged with adultery even though her family wasn’t injured in any way. And the publicity of the charge is clearly worse for the family’s children than whatever transpired between the married woman and the other man.
(The penalty for adultery is stoning to death. If mom is publicly murdered in that way, you probably agree it’s more traumatic to the children than a divorce?)
> In countries like Saudi Arabia, there are religious police who patrol public spaces looking for, among other things, married people who interact with members of the opposite sex.
> It’s not some kind of outlandish example, this happens today. A woman hanging out with a male co-worker could get charged with adultery even though her family wasn’t injured in any way. And the publicity of the charge is clearly worse for the family’s children than whatever transpired between the married woman and the other man.
Okay, and what does any of that have to do with adultery not being victimless? It's an irrelevant scenario when arguing that adultery is victimless, which is what you did.
Do repressive laws have a large negative impact on children? Sure, but what does that have to do with your assertion adultery is victimless?
Your scenario shows far-right laws in far-right states[1] being bad for children, but I still don't see where you get that adultery itself is victimless.
[1] I always find it funny that most Muslim-run countries are further to the right than the KKK used to be.
Yet laws prohibiting adultery would punish her for this activity with the assumption that I'm the victim even though I suffered no injury.