Great marriage advice.

[brewer]

Ok, here are the definitions you linked to:
a :  of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior :  ethical moral judgments
b :  expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior: a moral poem
c :  conforming to a standard of right behavior: took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination

Right or wrong in relation to what? Right behavior about what? Well, that would be in relation to what is "good" for people, and how people should behave in that dynamic. (i.e. morality only applies to moral agents and not to falling rocks)

So now we have to figure out what it means to be "good" to people. Enter our basic needs as presented in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Our basic needs are not a theory and there is no disagreement about them. The need for food, clean water and air etc...  are objectively good for us. This means that it is an objective moral fact that it is in our interest to value these things. These would be the basic objective facts at the core of morality. You cannot morally deny a child food and clean water without some other mitigating circumstance that you would have to have a convincing argument for, otherwise you are in contradiction of the definitions of morality that you yourself linked to.

I do not deny that progressing from this moral bedrock is easy but we can build upon this objective core to yield something more comprehensive. You will find the same basic position in Sam Harris' book "The Moral Landscape" where he argues that moral questions will have objectively right and wrong answers which are grounded in empirical facts about what causes people to flourish.
(I have only heard Harris talk about the book, I have not yet read it myself)

bold mine

Manslow, a theory, nothing more. Now I have to question your reading comprehension ability. 

Right or wrong in relation to a human thought or action. Are you being purposefully obtuse? 

Can you please tell me unequivocally what is "objectively good"? If I disagree with you or have a different opinion from you (even if my good is also positive, maybe considered by some better) you've just thrown you case for "objective good" out the window and we will be discussing the subjectivity of "good".

Food, water and air are needs, nothing more, nothing to do with morality. They are necessary to sustain life, seeking them is not a moral decision or judgement. The action to supply another with adequate amounts would be a behavior that you could then decide the morality of. Now, if I provided a child only gummy bears and classic coke, according to you, I'm being moral, I'm fulfilling a need. If another provides nutritious food and purified water they are also being moral. Would you say that one has a different moral standing than the other? If you do then these moral actions/behaviors have just become subjective. 

Yes you can deny a child food and water, it's done all of the time. Not by me, but it's done. 

Maybe you don't understand what "objective" means when it comes to discussing morality.

Edit: An additional thought for you. Theft or stealing, is it objectively (always, in all cases, without question) morally wrong?