I think if there is one point where traditions actually agree without ifs or buts, it is that morality is right there at the source, rather than being a by-product, of all that's holy.
Maybe I misunderstood you, and you meant the social norms on sexuality and hierarchy?
Misunderstood I think. The "source" is Reality, this either God (theist) or simply Reality-as-is (non-dual, non-theist) Obviously morality plays its part on the path, as it were, and yes, the morals set out and proclamated are much the same across every Faith. BUT, this does not deny that genuine ethics are a by-product of each "teaching", irrespective of how they are practiced while "on the path".
Speaking for myself, any overt attempt to be moral, to perform moral acts, ends either in defeat, or in a slowly developing self-righteousness that culminates in judgement of others who do not measure up to my own standards. It might just be me! A genuine ethical life can only be spontaneous and unselfconscious.
"When I speak well of myself and ill of another, the autumn wind chills my lips" (Buson)
Yes, Christianity asks us to be perfect, as our Father in heaven is perfect*, yet C S Lewis insists, rightly, that seeing Christ as simply a moral teacher is not an option. "He came to die". Yes, Buddhism - especially Theravada, is predicated on a certain level of moral rectitude, yet:-
"So this holy life does not have gain, honour and renown for its benefit, or the attainment of virtue for its benefit, or the attainment of concentration for its benefit, or knowledge and vision for its benefit. But it is this unshakeable deliverance of mind that is the goal of this holy life, its heartwood and its end."
(The Simile of the Heartwood, from the Theravada text The Majjhima Nikaya)
*Perfection? Again the zen koan:- "A clearly enlightened person falls into the well. How is this so? "