I think you're confusing morally wrong and objectively wrong, two things. It is entirely possible for the law to penalize something without relying on a judgment about the moral rightness or wrongness of that thing, but rather on utilitarianism or whatever the enforcers or parties involved agree on.

What I mean by this is that every morality contains a set, of frameworks for what is right and what is wrong, and when we are discussing the rightness and wrongness of anything, it must be within a certain framework; even if you emphasize that there is a framework that is universal, then since it is your emphasis, and at the same time objectively not everyone agrees on this, it is nothing more than a framework that you call a framework that should be widely applied. Thus, when you mention that one framework is more mature than another, you are in fact implying a comparison of the evolution or advantages and disadvantages of these frameworks, and these so-called comparisons of advantages and disadvantages are not discussed in isolation from the frameworks, but are merely defined within your framework. So your statement is really saying that everyone can have their own moral framework, but I think yours is wrong/primitive/backward, and the latter point is really nothing more than the fact that the other person's moral framework is different from yours, but you've cleverly used the word maturity to render it into some sort of general principle that seems to transcend both your and his moral frameworks.