You provide an argument for how "do not marry" could be derived from "do not divorce". Without endorsing either of those claims, you still presumably endorse the reasoning mechanism you yourself introduced.

The structure of the argument you provide is "if X is sufficiently important then Y (which helps in bringing about X) is good advice" (ceteris paribus).

I show you why the above reasoning structure that you used is too general by showing how it would equally prop up e.g. the "not eating marmalade sufficiently important" -> "suicide as the surest way to avoid eating marmalade" step. Using your very own argument; which you apparently accept in one case, yet reject in the other.

Now, I'm glad you agree that an application of the very same kind of reasoning you provided just as easily leads to "utterly absurd" claims, as made evident by checking it against border cases.

Why then do you still defend its use in your initial comment?

Concerning the "all else being equal", you evidently missed the "... while keeping all the myriad other goals constant". I'm sure you appreciate the irony.

Let's go back to DEFCON 5 now.