(I'm East Asian American.)
But assuming it is not, this is exactly what i wanted to point out. Societies have changed but the fundamental Human values have not and so that should have been maintained in some form during the process of change. We are Biological organisms with the same desires/fears/emotions/feelings as our forefathers but only the societal context has changed. While we don't have to go full retrograde nor should we go to the other extreme of negating all structures which have brought us to this point. It is in this light that one should look at all current-day "social progress" issues.
What's more likely is you are conservative and misusing logical arguments to rationalize your actual political opinion. It's ignorant at best, disingenuous at worst.
Human Values/Ethics/Morals are the subject pf Philosophy from time immemorial and in the modern world also of Psychology/Sociology/etc. Their manifestation, and variations over time, modulated in a socio-cultural context is what has-been/is-being studied/researched by philosophers/sociologists/ethnographers/anthropologists/etc. For your edification, the following are some introductions which are recommended for study;
1) Ethics - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
2) Universal Values - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_value
3) Theory of Basic Human Values - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_basic_human_values
4) Moral Foundations Theory - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory
I said you were employing sophistry in your argument and gave a simple explanation why.
I "insinuated" nothing, because I explicitly called you a conservative because the amount of ignorance and sophistry in your position forces me to conclude you must be one, not the other way around.
If you had paid attention and had basic reading comprehension skills (since, like a troll you don't know the difference between "insinuate" and the overt explicit statement about your political biases) , I had originally separated my comment into arguments, separated by paragraph spacing. My second argument (BELOW the blank space) was the conclusion that you must be an ignorant conservative. My first argument (ABOVE the blank space) was simply applying basic critical thinking skills about previous claims. You should focus on that, the substance of criticism, but instead you employ deflection tactics and whine about my deciding that you are a conservative.
Again, all you're preaching with those Wikipedia links is reducible to naive cultural relativism. It is a gross political ideology, employed by the worst: neoliberals. And you don't have to be an American to be one. Clearly your background in philosophy and social studies is in dire need of an update patch, since you are not even aware of this.
And, speaking as an overeducated Asian American with a busy life, I find ignorant discussions about social issues quite tiresome so if you have nothing new beyond your last comment about how much you buy into cultural relativism, please leave me be.
It is only people who are not educated enough that feel the need to call themselves "overeducated". That single phrase tells me all that everybody needs to know about you i.e. a self-aggrandizing "troll" hiding behind anonymity on the Internet.
Given your ignorance (both of the domain knowledge and basic communication etiquette) I had tried to educate you by pointing to actual resources but of course you are incapable to studying/debating them. To say that all are "reducible to naive cultural relativism" is the height of ignorance. Nowhere in any of your comments has there been even a indication of coherent thought and ideas but merely empty verbiage and needless vitriol. You would do well to follow this age-old advice - https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/17/remain-silent/