Consider these two questions: "Is it wrong for me to steal?", "Should we punish people who are caught stealing". These two questions seem similar, and we may be tempted to use similar arguments to answer them both. But upon closer inspection we see that they exist in two distinct realms of ethics: personal ethics and group ethics. 

Simply stated, our personal ethics is the system we use to make ethical decisions in our life, and group ethics is the system some group (family, city, country, etc.) uses to make decisions for the group. For example, if I believe I should act with integrity, and choose not to steal, this is a personal ethical decision. On the other hand, if I believe that thieves should be punished because without trust and security it would be impossible to create a functioning economy, this is a group-level ethical belief.  

Whenever we make ethical arguments, we should be aware of which of these ethical systems we are talking about. Let's consider some made up arguments to see examples of alignment or misalignment of ethical systems. They are all of the form [ethical claim] => [resulting action]

"Gay marriage goes against my values so it should be illegal"
"I would never get an abortion so the government should not be funding them for others"
"I think eating meat is wrong, so the government should stop giving subsidies to beef farmers"

These all have personal ethical claims, but actions that apply to the group. So this is a misalignment of ethical systems.

"My religion claims that same-sex marriages are sinful, so I vote for politicians who share my religous and moral values"
- "We should allow abortion because it results in a society where more of it's members are educated"
- "Industrial meat production plays a large part in environmental destruction so governments should tax instead of subsidize meat production"

These are all claims about group ethics, with group level actions. These are aligned.

"Gay marriage provides legal equality to gay relationships, so I should accept my sister's gay relationship"
"Illegal abortion result in more single mothers who need assistance from the government, so I would get an abortion"
"The meat production industry provides jobs to millions of farmers, so I should eat meat"

These are all examples of a view on group ethics being applied to personal ethics. This is misaligned.

"I think people can love others of the same gender, so I treat my friends in gay relationships the same as those in straight ones"
"I feel it is wrong to abort a child after the first trimester, so I plan to carry my child to term"
"I consider animals such as pigs and cows to be sentient, so I choose not to eat them"

These are personal ethical claims being applied to personal ethics. This is aligned.

Another common occurrence is when the ethical claim being made are so vague that we can not determine the level of ethics it is regarding:

“Gay marriage is wrong so …”
“Abortion is ok so …”
“Animal products are unethical so …”

Regardless of the following action, these expressions can not be meaningfully evaluated, because we do not know what ethical system they are working within.

The same person can hold personal ethical views that seem to contradict their group ethical views, for example:

"I don't think I could ever love or be in a relationship with someone of the same gender, but I think such relationships should be legally equal to straight ones"
"I could never bring myself to abort my child, but I think they should be made safe and affordable for those that choose to get one"
"I like eating meat, but believe all food production should be environmentally sustainable"

These are all reasonable views for a person to have, because they exist on two different ethical levels. Our personal values are different than those we hold for the group, so it is expected that they will not always "align".