There is something clearly wrong with your line of thinking. First you say anyone who cheats should be killed. Now, marriages should have a damage clause? Seriously? You really think people should receive bodily harm or forfeit their right to live for cheating? None of those at all are appropriate "punishments" for cheating. Why can't you just leave the person? Is that not an option in your mind?
I wasn't talking about domestic violence. I'm talking about something legal where the punishment would come from the law and not the spouse.
Punitive marriage clauses can only increase the worth of the marriage. They should be strictly optional for people who feel like they deserve to not be cheated on.
No, not at all. The only thing that can increase the worth in a marriage is how much each person puts into it. No one feels like they deserves to be cheated on so both parties would assume neither would do it. There's no need for that clause. If one cheats, leave them. Simple as that. It's not worth cutting off their arm or some other idiotic measure to stay faithful to someone you clearly don't have feelings for anymore. A clause like that is bordering insanity, even if both parties consented.
If this is the case, then they shouldn't be a couple in the first place. Anyone who needs a clause like that during marriage clearly doesn't trust their partner, or self very well. That shouldn't be getting married anyway.
Not getting a prenup is idiotic thoiugh. It's like not getting insurance.