If not, why does this age demand novel ways of circumventing the objective sinfulness of adultery?

If not, why not?

Sometimes a question is sothat, for many well-meaning people, it is. Two examples.There is much compassionate concern for people who have got themselves trapped in structures of: Is this the first human age in which people have felt sexual temptation, and have sometimes fallen victim to it?There is much talk about, as applied to those in objectively adulterous relationships.: Does all this stuff apply only to adulterers, or does it also apply to all sinners, including embezzlers, paedophiles, murderers, wife-beaters, human traffickers, torturers, rapists, economic exploiters of the poor, blackmailers, racists, exploiters of prostitutes, perpetrators of genocide, drug-traffickers, etc. etc..There is a phraseSome people at the moment examine in minute and immensely sophisticated detail the finer points of. They seem always to have in mind the more comfortably 'vanilla' sexual sins: Adultery dressed up to look like Marriage; genitally expressed Homosexuality dressed up as Marriage.At least, such people look to me like folk who have a desperate compulsion to find, by hook or by crook, a by-pass which will enable them to drive right round "Thou shalt not commit Adultery".Why can't we drive round the other nine Commandments too?Why is it necessary to talk about Sin at all?Why don't we just murmur, with the, "Stuff happens"?Why should anybody ever go to Confession ... or be baptised?Why did Christ die?