Your position is relativist. And you asked why relativism was so hard to accept. Well, like I said way upthread, it's because if you take a relativist position to its conclusion, you generally end up somewhere people find hard to accept. (Or less politely, you end up somewhere dumb).
And this case is a perfect example. In this case, you've pretty quickly ended up having to argue that "laws can be/are built on moral axioms that come about by chance because random moral preference generation will result in coincidental clusters of agreement"
Which contradicts the observed facts of moral development, aside from all the other problems with it.
You could spend a lot of time trying to shore this up, or could just start again with a better foundation than moral relativism.
