If you are trying to do this as an exercise in logic, then you have the following flaws:
Firstly, just because C intrudes on your rights, doesn't mean you should theirs
- rights are subjective, not objective.
- there are many people who argue that you give up your rights when you break the rule on other peoples rights
- there are consequences for everything in life (in one form or another)
- the participants in the affair knew that they could have consequences
- it could be argued that in consenting to the affair, they've given implicit consent to the consequences, should they be found out
- I could go on with many other arguments
- so no, the statement isn't objectively logical
This seems reactionary and childish to me.
Emotional response. There are so many other ways to describe it, including, for comparisons sake only, justice.
Secondly, C never went into a contract with you.
Official contract. Morals are a social contract, generally agreed to by the community.
by your argument, there is no contract between the two jilted parties, and therefore any contact between them is acceptable until they form a contract.
Do I need to keep pulling the logic apart? (running out of time, off to work, but I daresay it's all like this)