Society, Religion, Homosexuality et al.
We live in a society or polity based more on whimsical fashion than on philosophy.
A society based on the agenda or god of a religion, will judge individuals according to their obedience to that agenda. There would be no prior idea of virtue. Therefore, particular behaviour such a homosexuality, would be favoured, tolerated, or repressed, according to the agenda as laid down. Toleration of other religions would be absurd, other than by some pragmatic necessity arising from history.
A society consisting of an aggregate of free or independent individuals, would allow those individuals freedom of religion and general behaviour, limited by the freedom of others. Sexuality a matter for personal choice, as long as it is not imposed in any way on others. it would hardly be in keeping with this, for any religion or philosophy to be permitted any control within that society, other than the prior philosophy mentioned of individual autonomy. Schools, for instance, would be required to teach all religions and philosophies so far as they accept personal autonomy.
Thirdly, a society based the idea of community, as a body of individuals responsible for each other and of society as a whole. Altruist in general nature. Mutual benefit would require a particular sexuality to prove itself as socially beneficial. It is very problematic, how ‘gay’ sexuality could be considered equal to heterosexuality culminating in marriage and the family. Tolerance may be the limit such a society could allow to accommodate ‘gays’. Freedom of religion would only be possible or tolerated, so far as they are culturally innocuous, and have moral codes that conform. In so far as these religions are based on obedience to an agenda, they may be tolerated, but freedom of speech – which should be called responsible speech – is a bedrock of an altruist society.
Above the level of the preceding forms of society, we do live in a chaotic world, and some semblance of order is needed. It is clear that where groups of societies or polities are being considered, those polities are the ‘individuals’. A federation of quite disparate polities can be envisaged. But in that case they would of necessity be autonomous, only cooperating at the level of trade. Even so, such a federation would sensibly only include like minded polities – tolerably altruistic for instance. What used to be called ‘Western Democracy’ for instance.