The Questionnable Legitimacy Of Non-practitionners Of Religion In Regards To Sexuality


The topic of this paper is “The questionable legitimacy of non-practitioners of religion in regard to sexuality.” The purpose of this research was to provide information to demonstrate that religion and sexuality are generally two divergent concepts. The difficulties presented supported this purpose. Nonetheless, the conclusion of this paper clearly intended to convey that this problem is more complex than it initially appears. We cannot have a straightforward opinion due to the myriad of interpretations and factors that intervene.


Our society has experienced significant changes within the last few decades. This has been demonstrated by the rise of new mentalities and ways of thinking. Some of these ideas, which were not mainstream in the past, have become more accepted by society, particularly those centering around sexuality. The debates that emerge from this topic are numerous and problematic.

Our writers can help you with any type of essay. For any subject

Order now

As one can imagine, the direct obstacle these new views confront is religion. The purpose here is not to be judgmental but to provide an understanding of the contentious relationship between religion and sexuality. Being aware of this, the central issue of this paper is to present the problems associated with conforming sexuality to religious norms, whether it be regarding sexual behaviors or sexual orientations.

Ethics and customs lie at the heart of most world religions. Some religions consider sexual intercourse to be a sacred act between a man and a woman that should only occur within the confines of marriage. Other religions state that particular forms of sexual intercourse are immoral or sinful or that sex is exclusively for reproduction. Attitudes towards birth control, polyamory, or abortion, or whether or not people should engage in sexual activity before marriage, are often religious beliefs, and these are the primary proscribed behaviors.

According to the Interfaith Working Group, “In some religions, sexual behavior is regarded as primarily spiritual. In others, it is treated as primarily physical. Some hold that sexual behavior is only spiritual within certain kinds of relationships, when used for specific purposes, or when incorporated into religious ritual. In some religions, there are no distinctions between the physical and the spiritual, while others view human sexuality as a way of bridging the gap that exists between the spiritual and the physical.”

In addition, sex has become increasingly commodified nowadays due to the hypersexualization of society. This phenomenon is prevalent in social media, TV programs, etc. People, including religious practitioners, are less likely to follow the codes and rules of religion. As a direct consequence, most religions have lost power and influence. This trend will likely worsen with time.

One of the religions whose practitioners remain strict on adhering to its principles is Islam. According to Adamczyk, “Some cross-national and attitudinal studies find that Muslims and Hindus tend to have more conservative sex-related attitudes than do Christians (Finke and Adamczyk 2008). In the few studies that survey people of different religions within the same nation, Muslims appear less likely than Christians to engage in premarital sex (Addai 2000)” (Adamczyk, 2012, p.5).

Conflict between sexual orientation and religion has always existed. These two concepts appear to be divergent. Sexual orientation has been defined in many domains such as sociology, psychology, etc. Its acceptance has increased through politics, particularly in western countries, and via media and TV programs. The common argument is usually about freedom of expression and activity. However, religion is one of society’s pillars. Therefore, this concept of freedom is limited when one seeks to conform to religious codes. Christianity is a clear example of this.

According to Hunt, “The biblical texts directly condemning homosexuality are, in fact, few and far between. Other texts inferring condemnation are often quoted to support them. These include references to the ‘normality’ of two-gender divine creation and the ideal of the heterosexual monogamous marriage. The more explicit texts generally referred to are in the Old Testament book of Leviticus which declares same-sex sexual relations between men as sinful and, in the eyes of God, an ‘abomination’.”


Such differences are explained by sexual morality, which can be defined as the beliefs and practices by which a culture or group regulates its members regarding sexual behaviors. Regarding sexual activity, many religions have guidelines. Some of them perceive sex as a means of reproduction only — a sacred thing — while others view it as a pursuit of pleasure. The rules in one culture, therefore, define whether someone is immoral or correct about sexuality. In fact, it is crucial to understand that the expectations and standards of one culture may not necessarily align with others and that generalizing the situation could lead to misinterpretation. Mentalities are changing, and religion is becoming less and less revered in terms of its sexual codes than in the past.

According to Burke, “When it comes to stereotypical attitudes against sex, the Religious Right appears to be fighting a losing battle. Recent survey data suggest that religious conservatives who support abstinence-only sex education, restrictions on marriage for gay couples, and bans on women’s access to abortion are outnumbered by a majority of Americans who oppose these views. Today, conservative religion seems to be losing cultural relevance as Americans are less strictly devout and are increasingly progressive when it comes to sexual attitudes and practices” (Burke, 2016, p.5).

Regarding sexual orientation, it differs from sexual behavior and reflects feelings and self-esteem. People express their sexual orientation or behavior in their attitudes, often suffering discrimination and injustice. Unfortunately, acceptance seems nearly impossible from a religious perspective.

According to Hunt, “Despite sophisticated hermeneutics and apologetics and irrespective of the fact that liberal Christians may have current civil rights legislation supporting their views of homosexuality, the reality is that they do not have the weight of Church history on their side. The early Christian Church, and traditionally the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and later the Protestant churches, have explicitly condemned same-sex sexual relations” (Hunt, 2009, p.13).

We recognize that some liberal churches have begun to form a different opinion on this topic. In fact, one might argue that these groups are not doing anything wrong because they aren’t offending anyone; while technically true, the issue is far more complex.

The question of legitimacy is challenging to address given that even if most religions have a firm stance on sexuality in general, there are still ongoing debates and contradictions on the topic. As a result, fully embracing one perspective necessitates forgoing the other.

China And Imperialism

Since the seventeenth century, China had confined itself from whatever is left of the world and declined to receive Western ways. The Chinese allowed exchange yet just at the Port of Canton, where the privileges of European traders were at the impulse of the ruler. Colonialism in China started with the First Opium War (1839-1842), when the Chinese government attempted to stop the British from bringing in opium. This brought about a war in which Britain’s unrivaled military and mechanical may effectively pulverized the Chinese military powers. The Treaty of Nanking (1842) opened up five ports to the British, gave Britain the island of Hong Kong, and constrained China to pay a vast reimbursement. In 1858, China was compelled to open up eleven more bargain ports that allowed exceptional benefits, for example, the privilege to exchange with the inside of China and the privilege to administer the Chinese custom workplaces.

Nonnatives moreover gotten the privilege of extraterritoriality, which implied that Western countries kept up their very own courts in China furthermore, Westerners were attempted in their very own courts. Somewhere in the range of 1870 and 1914, the Western countries cut China into authoritative reaches, territories in which outside powers guaranteed select exchanging rights. France obtained an area in southwestern China, Germany picked up the Shandong Peninsula in northern China, Russia got control of Manchuria and a leasehold over Port Arthur, and what’s more, the British took control of the Yangzi valley. The United States, which had not partaken in cutting up China since it expected that ranges of authority may hurt U.S. trade, advanced the Open Door Policy in 1899. John Hay, the American Secretary of State, suggested that equivalent exchanging rights to China be took into consideration all countries and that the regional uprightness of China be regarded. The majestic countries acknowledged this arrangement in standard yet not generally by and by. For the United States, in any case, the Open Door Policy turned into the foundation of its Chinese approach toward the start of the twentieth century.

Our writers can help you with any type of essay. For any subject

Order now

By the 1900s, China was in disturbance. There was rising supposition against outsiders since China had been constrained to surrender such a large number of political and financial rights. This enemy of remote opinion detonated into the Boxer Rebellion or then again Uprising (1899–1901). The Boxers were a mystery Chinese patriot society bolstered by the Manchu government, and their objective was to drive out all nonnatives and reestablish China to segregation. In June 1900, the Boxers propelled a progression of assaults against nonnatives and Chinese Christians. They likewise assaulted the remote government offices in Beijing. The imperialistic forces sent a universal power of 25,000 troops to squash the insubordination, which finished inside about fourteen days.

The Boxer Rebellion flopped, however it persuaded the Chinese that changes were vital. In 1911, unrests broke out the nation over and the Manchu head was toppled. Dr. Sun Yat-Sen (1866-1925), the dad of current China, declared a republic and was named the new president. He pushed a three-point program of patriotism (liberating China from majestic control); majority rules system (chose government authorities); and vocation (adjusting Western mechanical and agrarian techniques). The Chinese republic confronted numerous issues and for the next thirty-seven years, China would keep on being at war with itself and with outside intruders.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

× How can I help you?