Question While reading through some questions in the religious section, I came across Peter Smith saying [http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2250/], "What is it with the obsession of (much) contemporary organized religions with matters of sexuality? It really is pretty bizarre. And for sure, if some of the energy wasted on pruriently fussing about who gets to do what with whom and where were spent campaigning on issues of social justice, say, then the world would be a better place. But I digress ...". Can any philosophers, including Peter Smith, tell me if my reasoning is valid regarding this (or come up with their own reasoning as to why an organized religion would have such rules): There are several reasons why organized religions could be "obsessed" about matters of sexuality, about "who gets to do what with whom and where" etc. 1. Disease: STD's are horrible, and the AIDs crisis in Africa is a good example as to why an organized religion might stress sexual relations with only one partner to whom you are married (you can also come at this by saying the Church should support the use of condoms, but note that it is largely only one church that is denying the use of condoms in Africa). 2. The imperative and teaching that you ought to stick with one partner in life, and not commit adultery or have multitudes of sexual partners helps one psychologically in relationships. For example, if one knows that one's wife/husband has slept with 100 other people in their life, one may experience some doubts about oneself and about one's partner, whether they are valid or not, they still occur. The constant harping of the church on staying loyal to one's spouse is hard to understand at times, but I'll leave that to the professionals to dissect, as clearly to be sexually free and unburdened by the "obsession" of the church is far better. 3. It promotes relational stability. A Jewish professor of mine said that his marriage was greatly helped by the great sex he and his wife shared, which was enhanced by their religious beliefs. Every sabbath they not only made time for God, prayer and family, but for each other romantically. If you are having your desires and needs fulfilled outside of the marriage or relationship, this only hurts it. So in these senses it seems religions have good reason to be involved or "obsessed" for the well-being of their people. I would agree with anyone who showed how some rules could be oppressive to a gender or sexual orientation, as I am writing this as a gay man. But on the whole, to be dismissive of such rules or teachings seems unthoughtful.

Accepted:
August 12, 2010

Comments

I agree that dismissiveness of such rules (without carefully considering their grounds and implications) does seem unthoughtful, though I am 100% certain that Peter Smith has indeed been careful to reflect on such matters and shares your concern about the spread of AIDs, STDs... Be that as it may, you asked whether your reasoning is valid, and I will respond to that question. I suggest that religions like Judaism, Chritianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism (the list could go on and on...) give attention to sexuality because each of these traditions has a vision (and practices built on that vision) of human fulfilment, and it is not implausable to think that sexuality has a vital role in human fulfilment. These world religions and others may differ in terms of their view of sexual desire, the mind-body relationship, family, sexual orientation and practice, and so on, but I do not think it bizarre (and here, I suppose, I do differ from Peter) that world religions should take seriously the important role that sexuality has in life in general and personally. Having said that, I do think that some religious teachings about sexuality (in particular, about homosexuality and the submission of wives/women to husbands/males) have indeed been painfully damaging and I (as a professional philosopher but also as someone who is part of a community of faith) have sought to address, along with a host of other, concerned advocates of reform.

You self-identify as a gay male, and so you might find interesting some of the defenses of homosexuality from some (but not all) Hindu ethicists / philosophers. For example, because of their belief in reincarnation, many Hindus (and others who believe in reincarnation) believe that sexual identity is transient and contingent. You may have been a woman in a different life, and if you do have a same-sex partner, he may not have been a man in a former life. This has been used by some (but again, NOT by all or the majority ) Hindu thinkers to give primacy to sexual love between souls or persons, regardless of their temporal embodiment.

Of course we might expect religions to take issues about sexual life and conduct seriously (though with some due sense of proportion, compared with other matters, like issues of social justice -- and it is the seemingly too prevalent lack of that sense of proportion that prompted my passing remark). What is quite bizarre is the kind of daft obsession that leads the Anglican communion to point of breaking up over the question of gay bishops. And what is simply vile is the kind of lunatic obsession that gets women stoned for adultery.