Gender is also irrelevant to these cultural characteristics.
Both genders have its own roles within different cultures. Cultures sometimes ascribe different duties and talk about the relationships differenly.
How?
How is it different from heterosexuality? If homosexuality requires rigorous codification, surely you would be in favor of homosexual marriage, to provide stable, strict structures in which licentiousness cannot (in theory) happen. That is how licentiousness in heterosexuals is controlled by traditionalists, yes? No sex outside of marriage?
That is correct, basically, and you provide sort of an analysis here that I would have... But it is an analysis that now falls dead.
First: homosexuality a it exists today is a counterculture to the mainstream and traditionalist and part of its identity is essentially based on the liberation from the traditionalist and orthodox positions within sexuality.
Second: Theoretically the support of, say, a society which has homosexual marraige and codified relationships would perhaps be acceptable. None such society has ever existed... The Greeks had some ideas about acceptability of these relatinships but these were all predominantly based off of the idea of master-servant relationships; there was no horizontal sexual relationship... But suffice it to say, there was no horizontal sexual relations at all at that time..
IDK, I guess we could conclude something along the lines of:
(a) If a society was acting out of a tradition that was pro-homosexual and had a very codified and rigorous idea of how this occurs I can see that it would be an acceptable variant for the soceities within there and I could politically accept it. But as a Christian I would be a minority there...
But still, I would agree with this society. This merely doesn't exist.
(b) That is not my society and htus I am uninterested in it to some degree... I want to see the triumph of the general Western cultural & religous traditions and a molding with some of the Confucianist & Buddhist traditions.
Many Christian and Jewish denominations have no problem 'jiving' with homosexuality.
There is no issue with being friends, family, etc. with GLBT but there is an issue in condoning it or regarding it as a positive social expression, so I think.
I was thinking more about things like polygamy, slavery and killing disobedient kids or people who work on Saturday. You know, the stuff unique to certain cultures rather than the rules most successful societies agree on.
Fortunately, the New Testament seems to oppose polygamy, and the killing of people who violate odd HEbraic law is patently absurd as an adulteress is spared from a stoning.
There is this
dramatic departure from old HEbraic law you should familiarize yourself with before casting these hollow criticisms.
Considering just the bolded part, it would wholly depend on when you would ask what moral ramifications interracial marriage would have. 60 years ago, you might have a different answer than you have now. And I tend to think that 60 years from now, no one will consider any moral ramifications of same-sex marriages.
It depends on the ideologies...
I guess to utilitarian humanists it is no biggie. Heh.
I can imagine that for Capitalists and plastic socialists, this will mean nothing in sixty years ... You just have to hope that these sort of flippant Capitalism and pseudo-leftism will persist with this vast levity continues...
But this is all at an end.
If you want to have a look at the future, take a look to Greece & Spain.
Dare I say... A
Golden Dawn is coming for us all.
Tell that to the people who were against interracial marriage for moral reasons. In fact, some still are. Go talk to them. You'll be surprised how familiar their arguments sound.
... I am uninterested in telling it to them, and their arguments are unfamiliar. I have no idea how Christianity or Islam would be used to jusify racism...
And I have no idea how naturalist ethical philosophies are used to justify racism.
You will have to take your brush and paint me a picture.