"Traditionally, women weren't even able to determine who they would marry."
There's much more myth than truth to that. Further, it also applied to men. In any case, the matter of the parents' authority in selecting childrens' spouses is not a matter of morality, but of social custom.
"Merely asserting that 'it isn't a matter of opinion' doesn't make it a fact."
No, but a good, long look at history does.
"Were your assertion true, that laws supporting 'traditional morality' do effect positive change, Islamic countries would LEAD the West."
Buncombe. That illogic is so full of holes you could drive a Volkswagen through it without ever hitting a fact.
One logical fallacy in which you're engaging is to pretend that any social custom surviving from antiquity is an essential component of traditional morality. Another is ignoring the 2,000 years since Christianty surged out of the Levant. And a third is assuming that the positive effects of laws codifying traditional morality would override every other historical and geographical consideration. I could go on, but why bother?
"There is no more representative class of countries legislating the "traditional morality" of the world"
That is as ridiculous as leftists calling Bush a fascist. Christendom has been at war with Islam more or less continuously since the 7th century, and the differences between Islamic extremism and traditional morality within the context of Western Civilization are vast.
"your evident belief that 'traditional morality' started after the feminist movement was launched."
I remember a couple of decades before the feminist movement was launched. I remember when traditional morality still reigned in America. And for those reasons, I am able to distinguish between traditional morality and the boogeymen you're trotting out.
I remember when Western women stayed at home and raised their kids, too. But that doesn't mean that's traditional morality everywhere, or even in the West, anymore. What you and I were raised to think is the norm isn't reality. I wouldn't want polygamy for my kids because I have no faith that it's a stable family group, and I don't think it'd be a good thing for my property values if a polygamist family moved in next door.
But the same arguments were made in favor of segregation. And I don't see how a social structure that doesn't harm me should be banned or limited by law, especially when the huge arsenal of evidence against it boils down to 'Well, the traditional morality that was adopted by Christianity after the Romans took over Christianity says so.'
I don't think kids should get to sass their elders back and I should be able to beat them if they do, and the traditional morality that was adopted by Christianity after the Romans took over agrees there, too. But the law doesn't agree with me any more, because judges say it doesn't. And it won't agree with you on polygamy for long if the lawyers are on the case, especially with this SCOTUS.
That's too bad, because societal upheaval like that ought to be by law, not by a jackass judge creating it.