05 08 10 - 15:24This otherwise prosaic article caught my eye:
"The New York Times was inclined to emphasize the topic of human equality related to the legitimization of gay marriage," writes the research team, led by Po-Lin Pan of Arkansas State University. "The Chicago Tribune highlighted the importance of human morality associated with the gay-marriage debate."
Both historically and in their current-day incarnations, the Tribune is a conservative-leaning publication while the Times has a more liberal outlook. It is thus interesting to note how their different approaches to this issue reflect psychologist Jonathan Haidt's framework for the different moral worlds of liberals and conservatives.
As we have reported, Haidt argues that liberals prize justice, fairness and doing no harm to others, while conservatives are more concerned with purity/sanctity, respect for tradition and authority and in-group loyalty. - Miller-McCune
In other words, liberals think of themselves, while conservatives think of principles applied to the group.
If all you care about is yourself, of course you want equality -- that way no one will stop you from doing just about anything. It's anarchy, the ultimate freedom.
But if you're aware of the consequences of actions, you're not going to demand something so chaotic. You will want order, cleanliness, principles, abstraction, organization and other traits of conservative thinkers.
In this light, liberals look like what they are: scared children who are blaming society for their problems, and afraid that what they're doing is going to cause bad consequences. Instead of changing the cause, they alter the effects, by making social rules to ban bad effects on the individual.
In this, they're a lot like the initiates of populist religions. These want to hear that no matter what happens in life, in the eyes of God we're all equal. It's only when they drift farther down the thought chain that they start to think of what is required to cause such equality, and what its negative effects would be.