So we shouldn't judge any of the above that you listed, because morality is relative? So, some people in the Catholic Church, who do grave evil (pedophile priests, murderers, etc.), should not be judged under your relativistic standard, making you a hypocrite in your judgments against them.... My head is spinning.
Here again we come to the conclusion that you, and people like you, will give a free pass to those you wish, and throw stones at those you wish. I, though, recognize evil, or immorality, anywhere it can be found, even in my beautiful Church and in myself, and I hate it (but not the people who partake in the evil or immorality, because these things we are all capable of). I can make the distinction between the person and the wickedness. Relativism is a perverted way of rationalizing bad behavior for the sake of the person instead of condemning bad behavior for love of the person, as you see in Christianity.
How refreshing to see I write a detailed explanation of how 'moral relativism' is NOT a synonym for 'anarchy', but apparently those words were too big for orthodox1 to comprehend; he instead resorts to his straw-man definition, since without that, he'd have nothing to preach against.
Ortho, broadly speaking, there are TWO elements to consider when creating a legal/moral code:
1) determining if the behavior or action is allowed or prohibited,
2) if prohibited, determining the penalty for violation.
You're assuming that 'moral relativism' says there's no penalties: NOPE. Wrong-o. Your pedophile priests had to learn this the hard way that they are subject to the same legal codes as the lowly-men in the countries where they are convicted, hence serving time in real prisons. Their appeal to God's morality and higher authority offers them no cover from lowly man-made "inferior" laws.
The concept of moral relativism is related to legal relativism, a fact that actions in different Nations differ in both #1 and #2, due to the sovereignty of all Nations. A good example is the penalty delivered to the gunman in Norway who murdered 77 children. Some here objected to the punishment, thinking that it was too light (compared to U.S. justice). There's a living, breathing example of legal/moral relativism.
And unfortunately for your argument, God DOES approve of man administering justice over other men, using their own legal codes. Maybe you're forgetting the significance of Genesis 9:6, where God granted His authority for men to administer justice:
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
That means men for the first time in history were authorized to use their own legal systems to demand retaliation/retribution for crimes; just as God ordered Adam to exercise dominion over animals, now God was giving man the responsibility to police themselves (and presumably since it was right after the Flood, that may have been the significance of granting such authority to Noah at that point, since it may have been a factor that necessitated the need for Flood: perhaps every human felt entitled to do as they please, without fear of punishment (including Cain who literally got away with murder, centuries before).
Relativism can never bring about peace, only war.
You cannot argue with a straight face that societies DON'T exercise legal (and this moral) relativism, as the laws of each country differ. And unlike your assertion above, it's the FAILURE to respect moral relativism, the sovereignty of Nations to determine their own laws, that often leads to wars, NOT the fact itself.