Whenever dicussing any topic in which sides might be taken, there are three levels of the argument that need to be understood.
For demonstration purposes ONLY, I will use the controversial topic of Gay Marriage and the various BASIC views that may be taken, from three different areas... LIBERAL, CONSERVATIVE, and NEUTRAL.
Not that these things really exist in such clinical, sterile ways, but that is even demonstrated herein and will not be touched upon further.
First, there is the OUGHT.
This is where high moral concepts would be found. "If I ruled the world, then people would be like this."
CONSERVATIVE: Homosexuality is a sin and thus those acting in such a manner have no place in the world.
NEUTRAL: People should be happy (Or something on those lines)
LIBERAL: Gays have every right to be as free and priveliged as anyone else.
Then there is the SHOULD.
This takes into account how the world actually behaves and the structures set up therein. "Well, given that we're stuck in system X, I would do this."
CONSERVATIVE: The law isn't on the books, and it could lead to problems down the line. It goes against our morality (our OUGHT) and thus we opose amending the law.
NEUTRAL: Well, if there's gonna be a democracy and all sorts of freedom, maybe we should give homosexuals the same chance as anyone else.
LIBERAL: The law is unjust and should be revoked entirely. All religious thought in the matter should be opposed, and churches that oppose gay marriage should be stripped of tax-exempt status (a bit extreme, but bear with me).
Lastly, there is the WILL.
This is entirely divorced of the other arguments. It may be tainted by our hopes and wishes (or OUGHTS and SHOULDS) but is not based upon it. Many arguments arise out of one party MEMPHIS T 56 FOR INSTANCE taking this as somehow attacking their own OUGHTS and SHOULDS, when it's a purely practical speculation.
CONSERVATIVE: The dang liberals win, it'll be chaos and the end of times.
NEUTRAL: They'll just bicker about it until the media shut up about it for a while (which is, incidentally, what often happens)
LIBERAL: Those damn Bible-thumpers are gonna keep the gays as a second-class citizen.
The usefulness of this clarification system.
It is key, as stated above, to not confused WILL with OUGHT. One could obviously think something along the lines of "Gays are sinners" and yet still believe that the law will pass without incident.
The tricky thing is, if we are not careful it is very easy to confuse OUGHT and SHOULD as well, and my use of such similar names (with divergent connotation) is to this purpose.
Can one imagine the following thought process:
Gays are sinners, it says so in the Bible. But, given we live in an alleged Democracy, we should extend the privledges of marriage to them as well. The asinine politicians will screw the whole thing up either way.
I think all gays ought to have rights like anyone else. However, "marriage" is tricky, because of its religious connotations. They will pass a bill for "civil unions" between gays.
Now, assume these two talked on the subject and debated the topic. They could very easily become enraged if they only spoke on their OUGHT. If they spoke on WILL, maybe not so much. But they will likely find middle ground if they discuss their SHOULD.
Furthermore, if they were to cross purposes... the first says gays are sinners and deserve nothing, the other says the law will pass, trouble will ensue.
Now that the basic levels of belief are delineated, it is possible to discuss morals, etc. in the appropriate light.
This is the easiest way to understand oneself's and others' beliefs and really grasp what differences there are and how to find an appropriate middle ground.
One Note: NOWHERE IS IT POSSIBLE FOR HEALTH TO BE A MORAL or VALUE. IT IS A CONDITION OF BEING.
Do we actually place behind Canada in public education?