This line "Religion further complicates what should otherwise be straightforward matters." indicates your bias. Your article is written with this bias in mind.

You define harm in a way that aligns with your morality.

You talk about nudity and sex in public. You could push it even farther.

Is suicide acceptable? Is suicide in public acceptable?

Is what happen with Jim Jones acceptable?

Is polyamory acceptable?

What about incest? Its consenting.

Then there is the age of consent.

It's not universally agreed on.

Why can you be drafted at 18 but not drink?

How is the concept even defined?

Morality is how society or better yet community works.

Suggesting that some how individual autonomy is the basis of all morality is just you promoting your religion. The UN charter on human rights includes the right to religion. That of course then gets into what is a religion.

A better discussion is how to live and let live.

Not define a universal morality concept.