Is Sexuality a Religious Issue?

By Austin Cline

When it comes to issues involving sex and sexuality, some

of the loudest and most influential voices in American
politics are promoting a religious perspective. Given the the
power of religion in America, that's hardly surprising, but
that doesn't mean we shouldn't question and challenge it.
Secular atheists in particular should use their position to
question and challenge how religion is being used when it
comes to public policies.
After all, unless there is something especially or
essentially religious about sex and sexuality, why should
religion be given any attention at all, much less a
preferential and influential voice in the debate? This isn't to
say that religious people should be ignored when sexual
issues are debated; instead the point is people who go out
if their way to prolciam that they are devoutly religious and
who are openly procliaming a religious position shouldn't
have their opinions given automatic consideration merely
because of religion.
If someone is a physician, I'll give their opinion on
medical matters real consideration because that is their
area of expertise. I would not, however, necessarily give
their opinion on the politics of health insurance extra
consideration because, aside from dealing with insurance
companies, they aren't an expert on that area of public
policy. Health insurance policy and medicine are not the
same thing.
When it comes to sex and sexuality, religion doesn't
make a person an expert and doesn't give a person any
extra knowledge or special insight. Education and training
in religion, like that which a minister or priest receives, will
at most give a person expertise in what their religion has to
say about sexual issues - but that's not something that
deserves any extra respect or consideration.
Religion vs. Sex
Marty Klein writes in his book America's War on Sex:
The Attack on Law, Lust and Liberty:
If these people did not claim to be devoutly
religiousif, say, they were inspired by alcoholism, or
visions of King Tut, or a desire to return the Louisiana
Purchase to Francetheir demands would receive little
serious consideration (and wouldn't be tax-exempt).
But because they say their program is driven by
religious considerations, they get a seat at America's
public policy table. And so their bizarre demand that,
for example, every American be prevented from using
contraceptives or having abortions is taken seriously,
included as a legitimate voice in public debate
because they claim this is the demand of their god.
The very idea that sexuality is a religious issue,
that public policy about sexuality requires the input of
religious leaders, that religious leaders have special
expertise about sexuality and public policy (because it
involves what they call morality), is just an opinion
primarily the opinion of religious believers. The fact
that so many people now accept the pragmatic
inevitability of this linkage is itself another antisex
victory in the War on Sex. (Once again validating the
peculiar idea that morality is about limiting sexual
expression.)
The only claim to "authority" that religious leaders can
make isn't based on personal expertise, but is instead
based on their base of support - voters who also happen to
be members of their religious denomination or congregation
and who will be swayed by the leaders' proclamations. This,
though, completely eliminates the special claims to moral
authority which religious leaders like to make and instead
reduces their position to that of the leader of a special
interest group, like a garden club or an environmentalist
group.
Such organizations aren't irrelevant and politicians will
listen to their leaders because they presumably represent
the opinions of voters - and the more voters they claim to
represent, the more attention they get. Hopefully, though,
politicians are smart enough to recognize that no matter
how many voters an organization's leader might reasonably
claim to represent, that cannot confer any special expertise
or moral authority which requires anyone to give that
leader's statement extra political weight.