Let’s drop the hijacks about the appropriateness of titles and whether they entail worship of people with titles. Those are better addressed in Great Debates. Let’s stick to the subject of the OP.
I believe that there are also restrictions on whether you get the title if the husband (not spouse, because it has to be a husband) passes away before you do. If you have any kids (used to be male, now can be female for the royal succession, but I don’t know if that applied to all titles and peerages or if they were already first-born-regardless-of-gender) then THEY get the title, not the wife, and if there aren’t any kids, I think (but can’t find a cite at the moment) that it goes to the next-available relative of the husband (siblings, parents, uncles, aunts, cousins, nieces/nephews).
You’re mixing apples and orange juice here. The peerage, with its prerogatives (which these days have dwindled to the right to be or vote for representative peers) always passes to the son, and may or may not pass to or through a daughter or else to a heir male (senior relative sharing exclusively paternal lineage). The wife of a peer retains her title for life with some exceptions (remarriage being one IIRC), but that’sw by courtesy, not because she inherited her husband’s title..
That is what I meant, and I’m glad you said it better than me. I wasn’t trying to imply that the wife would have the title stripped from her, just that the “prerogatives” of the title (which I thought was what was under discussion) don’t go to her.