“He believes some gay men and lesbians are worried about opening up “wounds between Christians and homosexuals” over the measure “which have only recently healed”.”
To be honest its not an argument I’ve heard an awful lot about.
The whole article sounds more like Mr Thompson is talking out of his @rse
aaaww has it hurt christians feelings that gay people don’t want to be walked over by the pious?
They wouldn’t know real pious if it came up and bit them on their bigoted asses…..
Coincidentally, I had only just posted a link to the article in question in my comment on the PN Canada/Iran article. I did so because (particularly a few comments pages in) the reader posts under that article were so hatefully homophobic, as are the posts under any DT online article on LGBT issues.
The “moderators” allow most of the homophobic comments and insults to stand, and very few posters challenge them.
The latest article’s reader comments expose the views of the UK’s worst LGBT-haters posting from behind their screen of anonymity:
Religious idiots again trying to assert ownership over a civil law mechanism (the nature of the ceremony is a frippery, only of relevance to the participants). And all this because some snivelling little snowflakes might be “offended”? Why must the religious, those who chose dogma, be such craven fools?
And christians wound US, we haven’t touch a hair on their precious little heads, despite their pitiful martyr complex.
I don’t know any homosexuals who believe that their equal rights should be voted on by the rest of society. I think the letter was made up just as an excuse for this idiot to write a pile of crap.
Homophobic and brainless. To be ignored
This man does NOT speak for me or any in my circle. Marriage equality can’t come quick enough as we’re concerned and is not a matter for public debate. As far as concern for “opening wounds” the church can go to hell for all I care (said with the understanding that that statement means more to them than it does to me)
I’m going to come out and say I voted for the conservatives in the last general election. I did so because I believed David Cameron when he talked about gay rights and his conviction to support them. Since the collision is making great steps in legalising gay marriage, I’d say my vote wasn’t wasted. But if they decide against it, then I truly was a fool.
You were a fool.
Absolutely, @Paul Halsall.
I must have missed Labour introducing equal marriage then in their years of mis-rule then I guess
You were a fool.
The Tories are the same homophobic scum they always were despite the occasional little PR gesture.
This may come as a surpise to Mr Thompson, but occasionally a politician does something because think it’s the right thing to do, not because they think it’ll win them votes. Will supporting equal marriage help the Tories at the next election? Probably not. Will it harm them? Probably not. Is it the right thing to do? Hell yes.
The fact that he repeatedly refers to us as “homosexuals” tells us all we need to know about what he really thinks of us.
This is yet ANOTHER American tactic be put into play in the UK. Make wild, unsubstantiated statements rapid fire and hope one sticks. Then find ONE gay person who doesn’t want marriage or children to pontificate on how NO gay person should be allowed marriage or children. In America, ours are called GOProud in the UK you have Rupert Everett.
He is himself openly gay.
And openly twisted, it would appear.
Of a less enlightened generation, clearly.
Spot on, Hayden.
The word/term ‘homosexual’ is always used by those looking to belittle us. Personally I find this word as offence as I’d imagine a black person would find the N word, particuarly as it originally referred to homosexuality as a mental illness. Always telling, as you quite rightly say that that it says more about those who rely on it when making unfounded comment.
I prefer the terms heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual. I find them very egalitarian.
I hate ‘straight’.. because those who are not straight are always presumed to be bad in some way. Think about the term straight in comedy double acts, or in criminality for example~
Damian Thompson is a committed catholic (therefore a homophobe). Nothing more needs to be said. (Except perhaps as has been said elsewhere that Everett is the product of a catholic upbringing.)
Damian Thompson is gay himself.
just because your gay doesn’t mean your not homophobic – ever heard of internalised homophobia and catholic guilt?
And on a daily basis the terrograph pushes that particular cults agenda.
Equally, just because you are Catholic doesn’t mean you are homophobic either.
FFS, stop seeing things in such black & white definitives.
Writing ‘homosexual’ rather than ‘gay’ is pretty much Telegraph policy. Its readers are of the type that still lament the different meaning phases like “He’s awfully gay” would have today.
Rupert Everett merely expressed a personal opinion.
He is not a mouthpiece for the right-wing bigots.
He might be misguided, but he isn’t homophobic.
Don’t fall into the trap that others set for you.
Damian Thompson says about “wounds between christians and homosexuals”. He gets it entirely wrong. Christians are in no way “wounded” by other people seeking access to goods and services that every other human being in the country is entitled to.
The injury is entirely one-sided, suffered by homosexuals, and inflicted by the christians. The idea that their victims should just bend over and take it, so as not to cause offence. It’s laughable at best, insulting at worst.
Cameron didn’t do it just to allow gay people the choice of voting conservative without throwing away their civil rights, he did it so that the party would be less unelectable, which it has been for a generation. By breaking the strange alliance between financial liberalism and social conservatism, he’s trying to create a party that can appeal to a broader section of society. Without that it’s inevitably back into the wilderness for the lot of them.
Maybe the DT and its readers should read and understand that about 1.5% of the UK population is LGBT, I refer http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11398629
That was a flawed poll on so many levels its farcical
Irrelevant. If only 1.5% of the UK population was of Indian descent would you accept people born to Indian parents being treated differently under the law?
For amusement, here is the article in the Economist.
For the education of Thompson, the Economist has a proud record at the vanguard of human rights and liberties based on sound reason reason as opposed to superstition and hate and was the first major publication in the world to support same-sex marriage.
The illustration for this is article was therefore no more than a little joke amongst friends.
Understand now Damian?
PS. I do find the representation of George Osbourne a little disturbing though :-)
Yep, 1996. I treasured that issue for many years!!
Russell Tovey is awful looking I mean just awful looking.
The Telegraph has always been the paper of the nasty people. Just sit on a London tube any weekday and look at the faces of those reading this right wing rag and you’ll see what you’re up against.
Interestingly, those who are supposedly well educated, as in the Telelegraph reader/journalists are those who always resort and depend on the lowest form of writing to get across their message – note the words – ‘whoring’, ‘dirty little secrets’ etc.
Were one to use these terms when referring to a Catholic Priest, for example, or dare I say it – a Muslim Cleric, you could imagine the backlash. However, rest easy peaceful people, the day that the Telegraph describes a Muslim or a Christian leader as being whored to, or, having a dirty little secret, would be the paper’s last issue.
Writers like Damian Thompson haven’t the balls to tackle the real issues. From where I sit, it isn’t gay people out there bombing embassies, murdering civilians and troops or insulting our fellow human beings.
At one time it was the Sun, recently it was the Daily Mail now it is the Daily Telegraph.
Excellent comment, @Paul from Brighton.
This man is talking out his arse.
I voted conservative because we’d have been bankrupted by Labour if i hadn’t and i’m glad i did every day. More benefit tests and stricter tests for them, less immigration, more home owner rights from squatters, higher fines for breaking so many laws and a few others
Labour didn’t even mention gay marriage until the other two parties did.
So yes, i’m glad i voted Conservative because the country was being ruined under LAbour who created a culture of flooding th ecountry with more benefits claimants to increase their vote.
Don’t feel the troll, people.
Get a life Paolo, this is a democracy and I can vote for who I like. If you want to live somewhere I can’t vote for who I like then move to Russia or China where you can’t spout your nonsense either
Paolo, if Tigra or one of his family becomes disabled (it happened to one of my family literally overnight, a hard-working man with a full time and a part time job), he will understand his folly.
I once voted Tory, and have regretted it ever since. They destroyed this country, creating a land where disabled hate crimes are increasing, white collar crime is rewarded, not punished, and manufacturing, which has been the saviour of Germany is almost extinct, thanks to Thatcher, who achieved what the Luftwaffe once dreamt of.
Truly the Nasty party.
Having a contrasting opinion =/= Trolling.
He is not a troll, he is explaning why he voted conservative and why he is happy with his vote.
We as a country still hold our AAA status in the banking community allowing us to borrow at a cheaper rate. That’s good for us.
Yes we hate cuts but at least we’re not bankrupt like other countries. Things will get better, quicker for us when the tide turns, have hope.
Thanks David, unfortunately some still see any voters other Labour ones as a personal attack to them. And we’re seeing a dangerous trend of young gays who want all opposition silenced rather than a more realistic and democratic free speech system where arguments can be beaten with words instead of Communist silencing and imprisonment
Oh, get a grip on reality and stop the ridiculous ‘communism’ hyperbole. Nobody wants to censor your Tory Central Office line.
I personally applauded Cameron’s embracing of gay marriage in the face of his less-than-keen party faithful and hope that it can be sustained against his Loony Right. The more it’s an all-party policy, the better.
None of this means I or anyone else can’t criticise laissez-faire capitalist ideology which targets the poor and disabled, lets the financial gamblers who caused the crisis continue looting the economy and grabbing public assets, and causing long-term stagnation and unemployment so wages and conditions can be pushed down further to benefit the politicians’ wealthy clients. And no, I am not a Labour supporter. The crisis of modern democracy is that all the main parties have been bought by the wealthy corporate elite.
The Telegraph is owned by rich practising Catholics, and edited by a practising Catholic.
Oh, and Damien Thompson himself used to edit the Catholic Herald.
Well, colour me gold and stick me on a wedding cake!
Colour me pink, and I’ll join you!
The sooner the Coservative-led coalition stop prevaricating and hold a free vote on marriage equality the better. Although there is a lot of opposition from within the Conservative Party, the other main parties will vote almost unaminously for it. Having a vote now will pre-empt those who oppose gay marriage. With another 2 1/2 years to go before another General Election has to be held, there will be plenty of time for the people of this country to realise that marriage equality is a non-issue in much the same way as the equalising of the age of consent, scrapping of Clause 28 and the introduction of Civil Partnerships have been.
I would think we’d still need sufficient Tory votes to pass equal marriage under a Labour government. Not all Labour MPs are in support, arguably 95% of them are, so they’d still need some Tories to vote with them as well as Liberal Democrats of course.
Don’t forget, Civil Partnerships didn’t pass with an overwhelming majority.
.Don’t forget Independents and regional parties will probably help although I wouldn’t expect much from the Unionist parties from the north of Ireland and of course the cowardly SDLP….who will probably do what they are good at. sitting on their hands…..
What a vile article. I despise gay people for making it easier for the bigots to score points.
I was unaware that any wounds had been healed. We’ve not received any formal apology from the state cult either, so Thompson’s article is disingenuous and doing nothing more than pandering to hatred, fear and homophobia, hence the responses by its readership.
What can one expect from a catholic supporting a cult with a long history of paedophilia and misogyny? Shows the kind of bad parenting he grew up with, teaching their children to hate and to spread false information about others and a cult which promotes it.
If the Tories do now support marriage equality good for them and i support that.
But there’s no way im going to vote for them when you look at there stand with the there other views and the effects of there polices like with taking benefits from the severely disabled forcing them out to work when they are not able while those abusing system get off with it. The creeping privatization of the NHS, the funding of new “free” schools at the expense of our already struggling public schools with some of them set up by private orgnaizations. The pushing of teaching family values in schools by Gove And not to mention the Tories trying to dictate the referendum.
David Cameron is becoming desperate for votes because polling is going against him and he wants to gain votes from the young and LGBT folks who would normally vote Lib Dem. So i question his sincerity.
But if they do pass marriage equality it will be one of the only good polices they have passed.
I’m sorry i just feel Cameron is trying to take advantage of us for votes. Rather than helping us achieve equality because he wants to.
If the Lib Dem vote does collapse by 2015 i fear he is orchestrating a plan to get most of there voters to vote for the Tories so he can win in 2015.
what about removing historic convictions? What about making squatting a criminal offence – giving rights back to home owners?
Thomson is paid to write crap – I pointed out he hadn’t bothered to any homework. PN reported at the start of the election that 38% were thinking of voting Tory, this crashed to 8% after homophobic candidates spouted off religious nuttery, the Chris Grayling tapes (how he’s changed his tune), and the other gaffes. Appear homophobic and you’ll have to look elsewhere for a potential 3.7m votes. Don’t deliver on marriage equality — quickly — and you can forget much support from the gay community IMO. Telegraph articles are almost always anti-gay anti-equality — ignore them. Look at their circulation figures — appalling.
Public percentages are irrelevant.
The CASH influences in the background are what matter.
Is Miss Thompson another Mildred Pierce? I wonder.
Another monkey dribbles some filth. Hardly what I’d call news. Said monkey starts flailing that religious bigots will be outraged. Again, not exactly a groundbreaking development. Said monkey eats a flea. The world stops moving.
Only to be expected.
The Terrorgraph as run by catholic brothers and only sympathizes the Daily Hate to spew its drivel.
The Bigger Picture needs to be seen with these organisations.
Both are hate filled rubbish rags whose journalists pay homage to their bosses.
NEWS does not exist on these Catholic run comics.
Unfortunately the bar stewards are rich and influence UK life with their money.
Of course they are whoring for our vote.
Add posturing, smarmying, fawningly sycophantic, sickeningly disingenuous…
Strange how all these MPs are suddenly jumping into line to support the trendy cause du jour having never given a fig about gay rights previously.
Add a load of trumped-up, publicity-seeking celebs keen to climb onto the bandwagon too and it pretty much sums up what a charade this cause is becoming.
And of course everyone else is a bigot for not clamouring to be seen to be supporting the most crucially important issue on the Parliamentarian agenda right now, bar none.
Marriage is an inherently religious institution that is fast dying out as couples today choose cohabitation instead.
The Standard letter writer is spot-on:- civil partnerships provide all the key rights of marriage without the religious angle, and are modern and hip into the bargain.
Or are the pro-marriage lobby just driven by the prospect of rubbing religions’ nose into the dirt at all costs?
only it doesn’t provide all of the rights if you were dying and bed-ridden in hospital you cannot by law get a civil partnership – you can however get a marriage – the straight partner gets their inheritance the gay partner does not.
doesn’t seem fair does it?
Then we should be fighting for civil ceremonies to have equal parity with marriage:- a more logical step, surely?
The whole sanctity of marriage is based around two people producing a new life together and ensuring that new life grows up in a family unit that is balanced between the male and female roles.
Radical gays want to change the whole tenet of marriage as laid down in religious scriptures to suit our lifestyles, and expect the institution to recognise two same sex people producing kids by non-natural means (i.e. test tubes, IVF programmes, etc.) and those kids growing up without experiencing the different and equally essential dual attributes of the mother/father roles.
To the radicals it must be bulldozed through at all costs without thought given to the sacred beliefs of millions of people.
THAT’S what’s so wrong!
And now gay marriage is a part of the PC liturgy meaning that to voice an opinion against it gets you branded a bigot!!
Where is the debate in all of this??!!
Get this through your head. Religion DOES NOT own marriage. It DOES NOT define marriage. Marriage belongs to the community. Always did, always will.
If you don’t believe me ask yourself a few questions:- Why are civil marriages even possible? Why can atheists get married? and why do divorces not happen in church? Because religion doesn’t own any of it. Just like they don’t own births or deaths but try and insert themselves into that process too. Priests/Imams etc. are nothing more than charlatans trying to avoid doing a decent day’s work.
To hear Christians spreading this constant lie about one-man, one-woman marriage belonging to religion is especially laughable, because the Bible constantly defines marriage as polygamous. Don’t you lot actually read that Bumper Book of Bronze Age Fables of yours?
Again, what’s all this about religion laying downthe tenets of marriage? And who said anything about sanctity, there’s no mention of any of that is ciivl marriage. If religions don’t want to marry gay people no one is forcing them to but they don’t own the concept of marriage, the state gets to define it, not the CofE.
The institution of marriage recognises to opposite sex people producing kids by non-natural means, why not two same sex people?
You are aware as well that there are lots of religious gay people right, what about their sacred beliefs? And that there are plenty of religious people who support the idea of same sex marriage, what about theirs? And I’m not just talking Quakers and Unitarians but CofE bishops and if opinion polls are to be believed, a majority of Catholics too.
Radical gays want to change the whole tenet of marriage as laid down in religious scriptures
Actually, many of the ‘tenets as laid down in religious scriptures’, such as a woman becoming her husband’s property rather than her father’s upon marriage, were changed over a century ago. Others, like a man being made to marry his elder brother’s widow (Deuteronomy 25:5-6), became outdated rather longer ago.
Sorry, but that’s nonsense. Civil partnerships can be held in hospitals and local authorities will typically waive the normal notice period if one of the couple is seriously ill.
So partnerships ARE fully protected in law, then, revealing the stampede for gay marriage to be nothing more than a sham comprising all and sunder jumping on this bandwagon too far:- either for opportunistic self-promotion or wanting to be seen as one of the obedient sheeple who will conform to intimidating and bullying thought indoctrination through fear of otherwise being demonised or branded a bigot.
We are no longer allowed to have our own thoughts or opinions anymore:- they must be shaped, crafted and programmed into us by extremist left wing militants for us to agree with unhesitatingly, like bland drones.
If anyone seriously believes that, as if seemingly by magic overnight, the new left-wing Tories stopped despising us and instead now want to see us all happily hitched at the altar, then you are seriously deluded.
Gays are being used like a political football to win votes and run down the authority of the Christian religion, the only other power equal to politics itself.
From where do you get the idea that marriage is inherently religious? I’ve been to 3 weddings in the last year and not one of them was conducted in a church. One of them the groom was divorced. Only around 25% of weddings now take place in church. Marriage also existed long before Christianity and in this country was totally separate from religion until the middle ages. So how is marriage inherently religious exactly?
I don’t think you mean the Standard letter writer is spot-on, I think you mean they agree with your views which isn’t the same thing at all.
But I don’t understand why you feel so strongly against my wish to marry. I’m not any of those you mention, I’m just an average joe who wants to marry my partner in a registry office just like my brother married his wife. I don’t just want the legal rights afforded by a civil partnership, I want a marriage. And no one, not even you, have come up with a good reason to deny me that.
Wikipedia states thus:-
“Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation.”
Doesn’t that description tick every box for religion-less gay people?
I just don’t see why there is a push and shove for an institution that is so steeped in religious tradition when civil ceremonies provide all the legal caveats, and when marriage as an institution has itself fallen out of favour in recent years as divorce rates escalate and people choose cohabitation instead.
I, personally, have been to four civil ceremonies in four years, three of which ended in acrimony fairly quickly.
Are gay people, men in particular, really suited for an antiquated institution that demands loyalty, commitment and faithfulness to one’s partner when men by their very nature are not designed to be with only one mate for an entire lifetime, with many forever fighting the urge to spread their seed far and wide?!
Are gay people, men in particular, really suited for an antiquated institution
Why not? Speaking for myself I know 24 male couples that have been together more than 10 years, 8 of them for over 25.
“I, personally, have been to four civil ceremonies in four years, three of which ended in acrimony fairly quickly.”
The measure of your friends is only a reflection of the company you keep and yourself. They were probably as mad and you clearly are.
Sorry Sam, I support a lot of your comments, but not this one.
“Marriage is an inherently religious institution”
Where do you get that idea? Marriage was around long before any form of organised worship, and in the UK today over 2/3rds of marriage are secular ceremonies performed in registry offices. Churches love to give the impression that Marriage (TM) ©1000AD God Ltd. belongs exclusively to them.
Well surprise! It doesn’t.
“Or are the pro-marriage lobby just driven by the prospect of rubbing religions’ nose into the dirt at all costs?”
You’re a fool. Ergo, your whole opinion is that of a fool.
The article is full of rubbish – apart from the bit where it says that lots of Gays voted for Thatcher. This is shamefully true.
Thompson also claims that “many homosexuals who want the right to gay marriage would prefer that the electorate had the chance to vote for it”.
Erm………………………..No, I don’t want the electorate to vote on this issue, after all, my marrying another man has absolutely no effect on anyone else in society.
If it was put to the public referendum, then I would begin a petition to parliament, (which I am sure would gain over 100k to be debated) making divorce illegal and that should also be put to the public vote. I am sure then that the likes of Damian Thompson would not be happy about that would he?
I second that. I also support a national referendum for disestablishment of state religion. Imagine the uproar from the religious lunatics. They’d be the first to cry discrimination. If they want a referendum on equal marriage, a threat to the government in my view, then someone should counter them with disestablishment. They’d better be careful what they wish for. Even Rowan Williams is aware that there is chatter about that when he mentioned the word in a recent accusation he made against the government embarassing the CoE over equal marriage. He seems to believe that disestablishment isn’t in the cards…..yet.
Equality issues should never be put to public referenda, full stop. The very notion is offensive.
Disestablishment should become the cause du jour for gay people once the battle for equality is won. The Religions should feel the full fury of the Gay community in retaliation for their detestable hate mongering during our struggle for recognition and equality. We have the means and we should show our displeasure to the Abrahamic cults at every turn. We should expose their fraud once and for all.
I for one love seeing this type of rubbish.
Doesn’t it smack of desperation to you. No believes that unless you are a bigot.
Have the C4M team been given jobs with the Telegraph this week or is this some kind of build up before the Tory party conference? They’re certainly busy churning out garbage at the moment!
Everything in this article just ties up so nicely to the anti-equal marriage arguments, the telegraph would write an article like this , wouldn’t they?
There’s nothing complicated about what gay people think, it’s the same as most decent straight people think, equality, equality, equality!
I love how these people always claim to know gays who blah blah blah, some of my best friends are (insert useful minorty here)!
Damian Thompson is gay isnt he?
A self loathing gay due to catholic guilt foisted on him in childhood.
Formerly Editor-in Chief of the Catholic Herald, he remains a director.
That says it all……
gay or straight, it doesn’t matter. I suspect if you write for the Mail or the Telegraph you either write something nasty about same sex marriage or you get the boot. All the better if you’re gay though , that’s an extra bonus in your pay at the end of the month.
Yes, but a self hater and since the only gay people who could tollerate him would have to be the same types, he thinks all gay people feel the way he does. A very sad, delusional existance.
They are getting desperate now aren’t they?
Mr Thompson should be aware that rather than “homosexuals” alienating the religiously deluded it is the deluded who are alienating the Gay community worldwide and this will not be forgotten, because once the “pink” pound becomes the enemy there will be only one conclusion and that will be to the detriment of the Abrahamic cults.
They have shown their hand and will reap the consequences, of that you can be assured. We are no longer hiding, fearful in the “closet”
We have the money and resources and a fight with us in the Gay community is the last thing these bigots need but a fight they will get and they will find their fraud challenged at every turn and they should remember that we have a rather large army on the inside as it were. We will have equality and those who live their lives to hate others will find Big Big changes. The Reformation of the 16th century will be a walk in the park when compared and they have no one but themselves to blame Oh the Irony!…….
Totally agreed. Very well said. The global LGBT community is uniting as never before against religious hatred, ignorance and bigotry, and the authoritarian religionists are setting in motion a force that will hasten the historical demise of their ignorant and socially evil beliefs.
First, Nick Clegg apologises to bigots for something he never said and you can bet the religious nutters will rant even more vicious, hateful comments as the equal marriage debate foot-drags at a snail’s pace.
The Mail and Telegraph need to be taken to task. They and their fellow hate-mongering homophobes should come forward with the factual evidence to substantiate everything they claim. It needs to be done. It makes me wonder why nobody has countered their spurious, hateful rhetoric.
Lets be honest here, he’s a self hater, and all his gay friends are as well. No other type of gay man could stand to be around him for long. His view of the opinions of gay people is therefore twisted.
The best thing to do is to comment under his article and explain why he is mistaken. If only to make the haters squirm :P
Oh no, there’s gay people in the comment section ewww
I’d like to just say for the record:
a) I never voted for Mrs Thatcher
b) I vehemently opposed Section 28
c) I have no problem with ‘wounds’ being opened up between Religion (based on bigotry) and the LGBT community
d) LGBT Rights and Marriage Equality is the one thing that Cameron is getting RIGHT for fcvks sake!
What a load of mindless righting, reactionary drivel – I can practically taste the frothing at his mouth as he types!
Well, just as that there are plenty of women who have been totally engaged with the idea that women are unequal to men and should not be allowed certain positions in society and in a marriage should be subservient to their husbands, there also are plenty of LGBT people who have totally engaged in the idea that they are unequal to heterosexual people and should not have the same rights…..
Both groups I think are incredibly stupid!
Equally stupid I think are those who think it is OK to be given different, separate legal institutions that give the same benefits and rights as the equally exclusive different institutions for heterosexual people.
That amounts to the idea that it is OK to have separate drinking fountains, based on who and what you are, because after all you still can get water…..
Sorry, no! That is discrimination!
“The individual also believes the title risks offending certain religious worshippers”
So what? Offending religious worshippers can equally be serving bacon wrapped figs. Religion is a poor benchmark for progress, civil liberties or reason.
And exactly how has butt buggering and turd burgling dvanced society? Take your time as I can think of nothing other than spreading deadly plague Not most peoples idea of progress.
Did you know that Gay men are 50 times more likely to have AIDS than hetero men?
” many gay people voted for Margaret Thatcher (and kept very quiet about it, as I recall).
“They did so because, despite Section 28, they knew it was in their economic interests”.
Or in other words the logic seems to be, why go whoring after the “gay vote”, when many gay people were only too happy to whore themselves to the Tory Party.
Sadly there is some truth in this…