In some cases, I prefer a return to the Hebrew/Mosaic law's rules about sexuality that in many cases only has to do with the financial and family considerations. Of course, there were exceptions, such as the law's horrific punishment of homosexuality. And I would obviously spurn its idea that sexually-assualted women should no longer be considered available for marriage.
The Mosaic law clearly has a crude idea of women. In spite of this, though, there's a good lesson to be learned from that law's understanding that sex should be left to practical considerations.
So how did sex become a concern of morality, beyond just social-role considerations? By New Testament times, it clearly had. Or at least those roles did not start out as clearly defined as the law assumed. Instead, maybe those roles were expected to be created by the individuals concerned, but even that makes the concern more about morality and says nothing about practicality.
Unlike other sorts of morality, there is no justification for many of the sexuality rules of religion. Well, a justification other than they come from religion. God said so, so of course it must have practical consequences.
Another thing I keep thinking about is why does sexual orientation get even more concern? You'd think some religious people were worried that people they are attracted to might not be attracted to them. Horrors!
