I see a difference between saying that something is "inherently" immoral and saying that I cannot think of a situation is which it would not be immoral. The first is the view of an absolutist, the second of a relativist.

Aren't relativists free to judge? I can understand why a particular practice evolved in a particular place and still say that said practice has obsolesced in the place where it prevails, that those perpetuating the practice no longer have a justification for doing so. I'm describing what might be called "objective" relativism, a reconciliation of the ideas that morality is locally determined, but may nevertheless be criticized from outside. I believe in locally necessary evils, but the locals are not always the most reliable judges of what evils are necessary.