Moral Objectivism: Keeping Things Right and Wrong

When morality is flexible, people start to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. If there is no authority on morality (such as a higher authority, like God, for example) then people themselves can decide what is good and what is not good. Religions follow God(s) that give them the life lessons and morality they need in order to live a happy and fulfilled life. But when morality is dictated by humans, by their experiences and their feelings, things can become chaotic. The embodiment of evil, Satan you could call it, wants chaos. He wants people to decide for themselves what is good and what is evil. If a pedophile thinks it feels 'right' to have sex with a youth, and the youth seems to like it as well, is it immoral? The child could be pampered and trained and think that its reality is fine and dandy, but is it? Who is to tell? Are the negative psychological backlash of the child the reason behind dictating if the acts/relationship is moral or immoral? If you would arrest the man and take him away from his young lover, and the youth would protest and weep for the loss of her loved one, could you make an exception to a rule? The answer is simple: We do not have any objective marker in the human being that enables us to claim any authority on morality. Society and other people tend to want to change morality for convenience sake, for pleasures' sake, for love's sake. While love is beautiful and important, it is also horrible and breaking: love, while love can be infinitely good and bountiful, it does not serve as a moral marker.