If it is true that each community is correct in choosing its own morals (as you have plainly stated), then the Christian community cannot be wrong!! We are also a community and under your system, we must be right. Therefore, you are CONTRADICTING YOUR OWN MORAL CODE WHEN YOU ARGUE AGAINST MORAL ABSOLUTISM. All you can say without sacrificing logic is that you do not prefer moral absolutism, but you cannot say it is incorrect without contradicting yourself; and since you have spent so muich time arguing against it, you have already committed the fait accompli. You have lost this debate. It's over. Fini. Termino. Your moral system has been weighed in the balance and found wanting!
Quite obviously, I am not. I am contradicting your assumptions about the unquestionable source of moral precepts. You simply prefer loudly chanting spells to ward off my evil thoughts to critically arguing with me about what I have asserted.
Sure it can, you have, as usual, chosen to refute what you'd prefer I'd have said to what I have actually said.
If I am correct about the source of moral precepts, than obviously, unlike you, I do not think they are infallible, than I accept that they could have been chosen in error, or they could have become erroneous due to changing circumstances. You would, in fact, expect this to be a rather common state of affairs that has to continuously guarded against, and could, in fact, produce utter failure of a culture. Such a failure, contrary to your oft and loudly asserted assumption, is not evidence that nature is not, in fact, the source of moral inclinations since nature, unlike your version of God, make no claims to infallibility.