Yes, "morally" was then rooted in religion *and cultural definitions and mores*. It's not nowadays; morality nowadays is Timothy Leary: If it feels good, do it.

Without cultural definitions and mores... there is no culture.

Again, something objectivists seem perfectly okay with.

Objectivists aren't anarchists, don't think I'm saying that. Objectivists are too anti-social to be anarchist.

"modern" is a state of mind, not an age.
It's the idea that "ooh, I got more tech than they had a billion years ago, so I'm smarterer!"

Regarding defective... let GM try to use that argument.

"Oh, your car is only defective in the mind of the person using the label".

Bend your elbow backwards.
Obviously your inability to do so represents restriction is a restriction on individual rights, period.

Or it could simply have something to do with the nature of homo sapiens.

It is against the law to kill someone outside of self-defense. This is a restriction on individual liberty, since it restricts one from enjoying eliminating so many who so badly need to be eliminated. Murder laws exist for the benefit of the society, not the benefit of the individual. It is up to the individual to defend himself; hence the 2nd Amendment protections.

So, we've established that your god is "individual rights", reality be damned.

"Calling a tail a leg doesn't make the name fit"
- Robert A. Heinlein

There is no restriction on marriage based on race, creed or sexual orientation... it is what it is, and anything outside of that is not. Homosexuals can marry, provided they meet the same requirements as anyone else, the same requirements *I* have to meet: finding a willing member of the opposite sex.

I want to marry a giraffe. Saying that I cannot do so is a restriction on my individual rights. Period. But, if I am allowed to marry a giraffe, then "marriage" has been redefined to accommodate me, and quickly becomes meaningless. Which is what you want.

I drive a homophone to work, but I drive a paragraph home from work. I do these things because we have decided that words don't mean anything, that there is no objective reality, and everything is based on making people with certain afflictions feel not-bad.

I have decided to redefine "minivan" as "homophone", but only after 10pm. After 7am, "minivan" is redefined again as "paragraph". Why? Because words don't have to mean anything; because we don't have to have any concrete definitions, and because what I want supersedes the reality around me... if I'm like you.

Male and female humans mate. For life, in the wild, generally speaking. Marriage is the ritualization of this instinctive behavior. The ritualization has nothing to do with individualism, but about tribalism. Marriage, oddly enough, is a group thing, not an individual thing. It is a part of the panoply of ritual and semi-ritual activities that lubricate social interactions. For one thing it establishes within the tribe, "this is my woman; no other man may enjoy her". What you would call, "property rights". This isn't slavery, because he belongs to her, as well; you might say they trade value for value.

Note; it's not just that she may not screw around on him; no other man may enjoy her, as I said, making it a social contract on the tribe, not just between the two individuals.

This is not necessary among sexual deviants, since they don't mate. What they do may be fun, may be emotion-filled, but it's... deviant. It serves no purpose in the evolution and survival of the species, which, like it or not, tops individual liberty.

Society can survive those able to marry but unable to produce offspring getting married. But it can't long survive marriage being defined into meaninglessness.

No. Federal laws/regulations apply the same to all federal controlled entities, unless made more restrictive by a proper local authority.

Marriage is the social custom and rituals surrounding the natural mating habits of homo sapiens. They are not a matter of simple contract, but of obeying the most powerful of instincts.

It is being discovered, and ignored by the social engineers, the advantages of the traditional family (not merely the "nuclear family"... something more along the lines of The Waltons, if you can remember it, is most suited to our tribal instincts), including prosperity.

Reality is not determined by popular opinion. Things do indeed change. Take, for example, the change from the Roman era to say... the dark ages. Take, for example, the change from pre-WW I Germany to mid-WW II Germany.
Take, for example, the change from Tsarist Russia to the Soviet Union of the Cold War.

That's the difference between conservatives and liberals, libertarians, and even objectivists. Why some liberals and libertarians believe all change is good, some objectivsits just don't give a... crap. Let it change, so long as individuals are individualing as much as they are capable of individualing; everything happens in a vacuum.

Conservatives, on the other hand, prefer productive change; they prefer analyzing the past for what worked and what didn't rather than assuming modern generations are wiser than previous ones.

Take, for example, the cultural issue of homosexuality. I've seen it argued that Rome accepted homosexuality, as did the Greeks.

This is like suggesting that you and I accept slavery.

During its republican phase, Rome was quite prudish in many ways. Even Julius Caesar criticized the Gauls for practicing homosexuality.

Most are fond of treating Rome as a static monolith, never changing from day one until its demise. Which is a disaster for modern generations, who could see the devolution of Rome, if they would study Rome as it was, and thereby extrapolate our own decline.

As for the Greeks, in some times and places in Greek history, homosexuality was not only accepted, but embraced... in a highly structured and restricted way. Men were expected to give it up, if they practiced it at all, when they reached maturity.
Then again, Greeks are also known for their fondness for sheep...

Any marriage ritual or institution that deviates from the instincts surrounding the creation, nurturing and survival of young is destructive of society, to one degree or another.

As do all collectivists. That way, all they need to do is get one liberal state to enact their desired policy and they can force all others to obey.