Morality is totally universal, any sane person will tell you making people feel bad is bad for obvious reasons. RubiedCross just mixes up the morality and the doxa, which is very unique to each culture. If you look at the most "atomic" ideas of the morality in general, you'll see everything is universal. It's only when the problems get more molecular that people will begin to have divergent opinions, because it's all a matter of some ways to see the world (and there goes the subjectivity), the connexions between the "moral atoms" of the question is too ambivalent in these moral questions.
Death penalty is the best instance : does willingly killing someone is repressive enough to apply the same treat to the murder ?
Anybody will say "killing somebody is bad", sure. And then the arguments offer different views of the problem, and how to considerate it. And there are many elements in the death penalty question : political, moral, philosophical, legislative etc. And it's also a matter of circumstances and
how to treat these : "he killed that guy and he knew what he was doing, killing somebody is bad, does that mean I have to kill the people that makes bad things ? wouldn't it make me a murder too ? If I make malevolent actions for morally good ends, does it make these actions bad or good ?" see ? When things get complex like that, the problem doesn't get as much atomic as "is killing wrong ?", it's all a matter of some conditions that have their very influence on how you can perceive these things ; Each of them getting interlaced at some points : it's the complexity of the problem that makes the whole opinions on the question not so unanimous. I'm not enough of a logician to make an accurate "atomic" analysis of that topic but I guess I'm clear enough to make my point understandable.
And same goes for doxic judgements as the ones in the Bible, the Koran, the american tradition, the european bourgeoisie, whatever that conditions some subjectivities ! Of course, it's subjective at some points, because most of the time, these opinions are communicated without being questioned or whatever, the experience can also changes your statements on the subject ; but as long as the thing you say isn't on a "moral atomic scale", I can assert that you'll always get a consensus.
"Is being gay right or wrong ?" isn't a moral question, it's a doxic one : it carries many moral questions (ones that are more obvious than others, ones that get obvious only when you begin to make your arguments, etc).
Of course, there were some groups of influence in the history of humanity that tried to inculcate to people that killing could be good for whatever reason (once again, it's just an example), but these values aren't, I think, actually natural : there is
always an ideologist behind these things ; nobody would get to "naturally" think that killing can be good, except if that person has some serious mental issues. Such a judgement is in itself pretty unusual.