Tory support rises amongst gay voters

Since David Cameron became Tory leader there have been a number of attempts to reassure gay voters that the Conservative Party is friendly towards them.  These initiatives have included...

• David Cameron's much remarked upon visit to see the gay movie, Brokeback Mountain.
• Nicholas Boles, the gay director of the Policy Exchange think tank and candidate for Brighton & Hove at the last election, is a member of the party leader's inner circle of informal advisors.
• The party has encouraged a number of openly gay people to apply for the party's A-list of parliamentary candidates.
• Margot James, a lesbian, is likely to be on that A-list and she has also been appointed to one of CCHQ's Vice Chairman posts.  Ms James addressed diversity issues in her recent speech to the Manchester Spring Forum.  At that Spring Forum Alan Duncan, the openly gay Shadow Trade & Industry spokesman, distributed Tory literature on Canal Street, Manchester's gay village.
• At the heart of the outreach has been party chairman Francis Maude.  Mr Maude has been interviewed by a number of gay journals and has talked about the death of his openly homosexual brother, Charles, from AIDS in the mid-1990s.
• Mr Maude has used his interviews to stress various gay-friendly policy changes.  These include regret over support for Section 28.  In addition Mr Maude has highlighted recent frontbench Tory support for civil partnerships and his own support for gay couples' right to adopt children.  The Tory chairman has also highlighted Tory-run Barnet council's anti-homophobic-bullying policies.

A poll of 600 LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered) readers of the PinkNews.co.uk website suggests that the Conservative Party's efforts are beginning to pay off.  In the poll - the results of which are summarised in the graphic on the right - Tory support has increased from under 20% to almost 30%.  46% of respondents still thought that the Tory party was "homophobic", however.  Only 32% blamed Tory backbenchers for this homophobia.  61% blamed the Tory grassroots.

ConservativeHome asked Benjamin Cohen (right), editor of Pink News, what needed to be done to further increase Tory support within gay Britain:

"I think the ground work has already been laid. The open and frank way that Francis Maude has engaged with gay publications like mine has been a huge help in changing the way that our community sees the party.  I think the next major challenge will be converting the grass roots to the socially liberal agenda that the leadership is promoting.  I do believe that members should be asked to sign up to a statement of beliefs (one of which condemns homophobia) and those who refuse should be denied membership of the party.  I sincerely believe that the party should no longer be a refuge for bigoted right wingers who are the prime stumbling block to a future Conservative government.  Perhaps if this happens, gay people will be able to chose a political party on the basis of their economic policies, foreign affairs and policies to improve public services rather than being forced to concentrate on their attitudes towards gay rights."

Earlier in the year Tory support also rose amongst students.

Comments

[RodS]

Here we go again - it is not enough to acknowledge homosexuality as a genetic fact for a minority who should be free to live their lives as they wish - we are asked to celebrate it!!

Do I think people should be free to live as they wish ? - Yes. Do I think homosexuality strengthens society and the long term viability of the human race ? - No.

I guess that (In the eyes of 'Pink News')makes me a "Right Wing Bigot" - So be it !!

[Phil Taylor]

As a school boy and young man I was homophobic - it was hard to be otherwise in the seventies and eighties. But times and attitudes change. For me personally, mixing with some fine gay people as an adult has made me ashamed of my youthful prejudices.

I am sure there will remain a minority of Tory members, particularly amongst the older age groups, that finds it hard to accept gay people. I think that these people have as much need for acceptance as gay people. We all have to rub along.

I really don't think it is Ben Cohen's place to propose or endorse "statements of belief". I am sure a lot of gay people have parents and aunts and uncles who take some convincing to accept them. Tolerance is a two way street.

[Matthew]

It is not a matter of celebrating a particular sexuality, merely not being hostile to it.

[Gareth]

Fellow social liberals, may I make a suggestion that, collectively, we refuse to rise the to bait of the likes of RodS?

Past experience shows that doing so only allows them to glory in their victimhood as casualties in the war against political correctness.

[Tim Aker]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, not all this nonsense again. And reading some of the bullet points, i can't help but laugh at the desperate lengths the tories are going to appear pink friendly.

Yes, Conservative support rises amongst the gay population, but plummets amongst Conservative voters who feel abandoned as Cameron 'reaches out' by seemingly sacrificing every Tory principle there is.

Overall result, we gain 6 votes in Islington North, but lose thousands out in middle England.

[Andy Peterkin]

Weirdly enough, Ben Cohen once ran as a closet Tory (if you'll pardon the pun, by which I mean he was an undeclared Conservative) in an NUS election.

I hear he's since joined the Labour Party.

[Tim Aker]

Ah, thanks for the info Andy. No wonder then that Cohen's taking pot shots at the membership in his quoted piece.

[Editor]

I don't agree Tim. The Conservative Party should be an inclusive party and we should take steps to remove any perceived hatefulness towards minorities. I think supporting action against homophobic bullying and eliminating the injustices that faced gay couples when a partner was ill or died, are part of the proper modernisation of the Conservative Party.

My hope is that we are now at a point when gay people have got most of what they have campaigned for over many years. The parliamentary time given to gay rights issues now needs to be invested in supporting traditional marriage and parenting. Enormous social misery is caused to the very young and very old by family breakdown but this government invests very little in marriage support. The tax and benefits system is often very unhelpful towards married couples.

Saturday's Guardian contained a very interesting article on how tax/ benefit changes CAN help to preserve/ encourage lower income couples to stay/ get together. Those Tory MPs who through their upper middle class eyes think that financial incentives play no part in relationship formation/ breakdown should please take note!

[Frank Young]

This is excellent news and I welcome both Maude and Cohen engaging constructively on this issue.

It is interesting to note, again, that a particular group (in this case the LGBT community) respond positively to David Cameron but share concerns about the "rest of the party". It should re-enforce our collective determination to show Britain’s diverse communities that we are a party “on their side”.

It’s not enough to simply state our support for minority groups but we must pro-actively address their needs. The LGBT community, still, represents one of the most ostracised groups in Britain. I know, at heart, the Conservative party is a compassionate party and have no doubt today the tone of comments on ConservativeHome will be supportive and constructive.

I hope in the near future we can become the party of choice for the LGBT community but we should, together, be certain that like any relationship it needs to be worked at.

I’ve felt the party for some time has had a “no hiding place” policy towards hate and discrimination. I’d like to praise Iain Duncan Smith who did much which deserves credit on this issue. I don’t think there is anything remotely wrong with “celebrating” different cultures, groups and communities. If it makes them feel more at ease and welcome in both our party and society then that is a wholly good thing.

Homophobic bullying has no place in a modern democracy, it is vile and hateful and I hope that successive governments will ensure it is tackled vigorously in our communities.

Unfortunately I’m going to Chester today so I won’t be able to keep abreast of the comments on this important issue.

[Benjamin Cohen]

Just for the record, I'm not a member of the Labour party. I have no idea where you would get that from.

My own political beliefs are neither here nor there, as editor of a gay publication I am simply for any party that includes gay rights in their agenda.

[Richard North]

Is it compulsory yet? Being "gay", I mean.

[James Hellyer]

A few points:

The Pink News poll isn't worth the bandwidth it takes up. The sample size is on the small size, leading to a huge margin of error, and there's no guidance as to how a representative sample was selected. So there's nothing to get excited about there.

It seems offensive to me to assume that voters can be packaged up into interest groups that vote on ethnic or sexual lines. While it's true that parties will suffer opposition if they attack those groups, I can't see you win their support with superficial boasts about having a few gays on the team.

I'd also generally like it if we stopped apologising for the failings - real or perceived - of the past. All it does is remind people and cement earlier bad impressions.

[Mark Fulford]

"Yes, Conservative support rises amongst the gay population, but plummets amongst Conservative voters who feel abandoned as Cameron 'reaches out' by seemingly sacrificing every Tory principle there is.

Once again someone claims their viewpoint as a "Tory principle".

[Frank Young]

I'd like to Thank Benjamin Cohen for engaging with our party and Conservative Home. I'd be interested to hear more about his views on how our party can build a positive relationship with the LGBT community.

[Benjamin Cohen]

In response to whether I believe that traditional Christian views on homosexuality are the same as homophobia...

Its complicated, I believe in a tolerant liberal society.

Therefore a Christian who believes that homosexuality is sinful should
be tolerant of the fact that there are gay people who engage in lawful
homosexual sex. Whilst it is not ideal, it remains perfectly
acceptable for a Christian to maintain the private belief that
homosexuality is sinful whilst at the same time upholding the rights
for gay people to live their lives freely in the public sphere.

Many Christians who I meet and engage with in my role as editor of
PinkNews.co.uk and a s a columinst continue to maintain that
homosexuality is sinful (based on Leviticus rather than Christ's own
teachings). However, on the whole, they respect the liberty of gay
people to live their lives in a free way. In a liberal society we must
all tolerate beliefs and practices that we do not subscribe to. On
that basis, I continue to tolerate those who privately view my actions
as sinful.

The course of action, I recommend to the Conservative party is
therefore to encourage its members to recognise the two spheres that
they operate in. In their private lives, within their homes and
families they can maintain that homosexuality is sinful, but when
selecting candidates or themselves holding public office, they must be
tolerant of homosexuality and just about every other legal practice
that those in society engage in.

[Sean Fear]

I don't believe in signing up to any Statement of Beliefs. Conservatives can quite legitimately hold different views on the rights and wrongs of homosexuality.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

I think you'll find we have mostly rights these days.

[Selsdon Man]

As I libertarian, I agree with Ben. We all have the same legal rights, including free speech.

May I point out that there have been many gay candidates, even when Section 28 was in force.

There is a current frontbencher who is gay (in along-term relationship) but has not "come out" - even under DC's leadership. I do not understand why but his privacy, however, is to be respected.

[eugene]

Gay people in the main are successful, intelligent people who make a great contribution to Britain.

If support has shot up as the Pink Paper poll suggests, we can write in Brighton Kempton, Brighton Pavilion , Hove and Battersea as certain gains in the next election (just to name a few seats that immediately come to mind where the Tories are snapping at Labour heals that too have a very large gay component).

Carry on this dialogue.

[Sean Fear]

Was the survey carried out by a pollster, or was it a readers' survey?

[Chris Palmer]

Isn't there something rather demeaning about suggesting that homosexuals only vote based on their own sexuality rather than other issues? Oh well.

[Benjamin Cohen]

Eugene- its PinkNews not Pink Paper, we're competitors.

Sean Fear- it was a readers survey but a lot more complex than a BBC/ Sky News viewers poll. The results are weighted based on demographic criteria to ensure that those readers who responded were representative of the LGBT community in the English regions with local elections. In addition, the 600 selected had already declared that they were certain to vote at the local elections.

Therefore, remember that it is an England survey with the obvious bias that this brings.

We will be later on conducting surveys based on readers in the boroughs with directly elected mayors.

[Tim Aker]

Ed: "I don't agree Tim. The Conservative Party should be an inclusive party and we should take steps to remove any perceived hatefulness towards minorities. I think supporting action against homophobic bullying and eliminating the injustices that faced gay couples when a partner was ill or died, are part of the proper modernisation of the Conservative Party."

I agree, but it shouldn't be done in a way as to keep attacking the party membership as if we are the root of all evil. And let's face it, we've had years of being betlittled by Maude and co. in the Metropolitan elite about this issue and frankly it's getting tiring to hear them droning on and on about inclusivity. Moreover, these 'stunts' such as Cameron going to watch Brokeback Mountain border on the pathetic. I thought Labour were the superficial party?

Policies make us inclusive, not how many members we have who may be of a certain persuasion or whether our leader goes to watch gay films.
But this begs the questions:
- Why isn't the party focusing on being inclusive to people paying too much tax?
- Why is the party not including people who have concerns about mass immigration? [prescient seeing as there is a national debate on the matter, again, but we've heard nothing from the party about it]
- Why are we not reaching out to the vast majority of voters who want the government to treat the nation as one, instead of having the population being sectioned off into different interest 'communities' that think the government, and all political parties, should put the political spotlight on them instead of the vast majority of the public?

Those One Nation tories who profess to support these 'inclusive' measures, should think again and start looking at this nation as ONE and not a gaggle of communities vying for government time.

If our priorities are making policies like this ahead of ones, oh i don't know, like cutting council tax, then Maude may be right about one thing, we will not win the next election.

[Frank Young]

I think in his initial comments Ben Cohen has addressed this rather well. It would be wrong to suggest that LGBT voters will vote "en bloc" in a particular way, but equally they are less likely to reflect on a party's wider policy platform if in the first instance they think the party is "anti-LGBT".

It is about developing a positive relationship with this community so that at election times LGBT voters can comfortably look beyond issues of support for their community and rather at wider party policies.

[Mark Fulford]

It seems offensive to me to assume that voters can be packaged up into interest groups that vote on ethnic or sexual lines. While it's true that parties will suffer opposition if they attack those groups, I can't see you win their support with superficial boasts about having a few gays on the team.

The Conservative party shouldn’t discriminate between sexualities any more than it should between religions or races – sexuality, race and religion are arbitrary and none are an “interest group”. Any legislation that applies according to sexuality is as wrong as any legislation that applies by religion or race.

To show more than “superficial boasts” we have to demonstrate that the Conservative party is inclusive, and that means taking active measures to correct imbalances. The necessary correction is not “supporting”, but it is more than “not attacking”.

Ben’s suggestion of a signed statement of beliefs is a bad one because it prevents discussion and fixes positions: when would Europe, immigration, taxation, abortion, etc find their way on to the statement? We win by winning the argument, not by imposing a view.

[Rob Largan]

Personally I think it is about time that Conservatives reached out to the gay vote. No doubt over the years there have been many 'closet tories' who felt unable to vote for the party due to the intolerent views of a small minority of the party.

I am not usually the biggest supporter of Francis Maude, but to give credit where it is due, he is doing the right thing here. Its also fantastic to see Benjamin engaging with the party and CH. Personally I have no particular problem with signing a statement that condemns homophobia, racism etc. I cant see why anyone would.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Gay people have straight friends, mums, dads, brother, sisters, coworkers and lots of other straight people who don't think that discrimination against them is right. It's a dogwhistle issue for those people and for many others.

[Chad]

Rob wrote:
I have no particular problem with signing a statement that condemns homophobia, racism etc. I cant see why anyone would.

Rob,

Would you sign a statement that condemns positive discrimination?

[Editor]

The problem Rob is what you define as "homophobia". Is a traditional Christian homophobic if they believe, from the Bible, that homosexuality - when practised - is sinful?

[Henry Whitmarsh]

They can be homophobic, if I can own slaves.
(Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

[Sean Fear]

There is no more reason to make party members sign such a declaration than there is to make them sign a declaration that they approve of abortion, or sex outside marriage, or any other moral issue which sensible parties treat as an issue of conscience.

[James Hellyer]

The problem Rob is what you define as "homophobia". Is a traditional Christian homophobic if they believe, from the Bible, that homosexuality - when practised - is sinful?

The experience of Rocco Buttiglione would indicate that many people would answer that in the affirmative.

[RobC]

I can't quite see what all the fuss is about. A satble society is built on stable relationships. Any government policy should consider whether it promotes stable relationships - of whatever type.

Secondly, I presume the Conserantive Party is an equal opportunities 'employer'? Surely it must make an explicit statement that it does not discriminate on the basis of gender, disability (physical and mental), age, race and of course sexuality?

Thirdly, it is then only a short step to saying its policies should not discriminate on the basis of gender, disability (physical and mental), age, race and sexuality?

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Anyone ever read their stars in the paper?

"A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death." (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

[Chad]

I think the religion element is a red herring here, as the church and political parties should be completely seperate. Sure, members may be religious and their religion may condemn homosexuality, but the party has no place pandering to religious dogma.

My point for Rob though was that a political policy must equally condemn prejudice and preference.

How's this for a statement:
No political policy should offer any preference for or prejudice against any group based on their sex, sexuality, age, race or religion.

Equality is just that. Treat people equally without preference or prejudice.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

I think the killing of the fortune tellers rule is quite unfair. Surely the people they caught could only be impersonating a fortune teller, since a genuine fortune teller would have skipped town before they were arrested. How are you supposed to purge the nonbelievers from amongst you with logic like that?

[Sean Fear]

I think the point, Chad, is whether the party should expel anybody who says publicly that he/she regards homosexuality as wrong. I think that a party that threw out, say, Ann Widdecombe, Norman Tebbit, and Sayeeda Warsi would be little more than a narrow sect.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

I don't mind being stoned to death, so long as Prince Charles and anyone who has ever cheated with someone else's Missus is stoned along with me.

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

There are some sins people learn to live with.

[Rob Largan]

"Rob,

Would you sign a statement that condemns positive discrimination?"

Definately, I am against discrimination of all kinds.

"The problem Rob is what you define as "homophobia"."

Perhaps a better term would be a statement against discrimination on grounds of sexuality, gender, race, disability etc.

[Chad]

Sean,
Cameron did say that Joan Howarth was "in the wrong party" over her race comment, so if he was really equally supportive of homosexuals as ethnic minorities, shouldn't he make a similar statement over members with homophobic views?

I don't think Cameron should make such a statement but there is a glaring inconsistency with his approach to different groups.

If you treat eveyone equally, you avoid getting into these kind of tangles.

[Gareth]

Of course we shouldn't expel these people Sean. But there should also be a recognition that, for gay tories, it is unpleasant to be subjected to abuse and discrimination by people in our own party. To be honest, I think that we've put up with a hell of a lot over the years and yet stayed incredibly loyal and quiet.

There should also be a realisation that, in raising these issues, we ought not to be dismissed as Tatchell-esque obsessives, bent (if you forgive the pun) on the destruction of traditional tory values or claiming special status.

[Neil C]

We can tolerate varying sexual orientations, but we do not have to force our members to condone it, in statements of belief or anything else. This party will always be the place for those people who see the traditional family as the bedrock of society, and essential for the continuation of our civilisation.

[Chad]

So to summarise, Cameron's Conservatives condemn racism but tolerate homophobia.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Why does being pro family mean you're anti gay?

[Jack Stone]

We should be tolerant towards all sections of society and should not condemn any lifestyles that do not harm others.
I don`t care who supports the Conservative Party or who votes for it I just care that people agree with its policies and principles and support it.
Sometimes when you read the contributions on this site you can`t help but conclude that the party may be moving away from the nasty right-wing image it had but there are still quite a few people in the party who hold what are undoubtably nasty views.

[Chad]

Jack,
How can Cameron be 'gay friendly' and at the same time tolerate homophobia within the party? Why are racists in the "wrong party" but not homophobes?

Isn't that a bit cynical?

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Sticking to the main thread, it's wonderful that our support amongst the gay community have increased by 50% since David became our Leader. As Chairman of the Tottenham Association, I, and my Officers, would, if it arose, have no truck in dealing with homophobia in the same way as we'd deal with racism. Many gay Conservatives gave up on the Pink Paper years ago as it's incredibly biased against us. PinkNews.co.uk is a fair and informative sauce of news - well done to Ben and his team!

[True Blue]

This is how ridiculous homophobia looks to those people who simply don't understand peoples' unhealthly obsession with other peoples' sex lives. This is no reflection on Benjamin Cohen's reasonable comments. I merely swapped pratice forbidden in Leviticus with another equally random choice.

<<
In response to whether I believe that traditional Christian views on eating prawns are the same as hating people who eat prawns...

Its complicated, I believe in a tolerant liberal society.

Therefore a Christian who believes that prawn-eating is sinful should
be tolerant of the fact that there are prawn-eating people who engage in lawful
prawn eating. While remains perfectly
acceptable for a Christian to maintain the private belief that
prawn eating is sinful whilst at the same time upholding the rights
for prawn-eating people to live their lives freely in the public sphere.

Many Christians who I meet and engage with in my role as editor of
PinkNews.co.uk and a s a columinst continue to maintain that
eating prawns is sinful (based on Leviticus rather than Christ's own
teachings). However, on the whole, they respect the liberty of prawn-eating
people to live their lives in a free way. In a liberal society we must
all tolerate beliefs and practices that we do not subscribe to. On
that basis, I continue to tolerate those who privately view my actions
as sinful.

The course of action, I recommend to the Conservative party is
therefore to encourage its members to recognise the two spheres that
they operate in. In their private lives, within their homes and
families they can maintain that eating prawns is sinful, but when
selecting candidates or themselves holding public office, they must be
tolerant of prawn eating and just about every other legal practice
that those in society engage in. Including gay sex.
>>

[Richard]

"In their private lives, within their homes and
families they can maintain that homosexuality is sinful, but when
selecting candidates or themselves holding public office, they must be
tolerant of homosexuality and just about every other legal practice
that those in society engage in."

I think this is a fair point. Many members of the older generation have attitudes that Maude and co would undoubtedly classify as outdated in relation to homosexuality. As this is a generational thing it would be silly to start a witchunt against those who believe homosexuality is wrong?

"I, and my Officers, would, if it arose, have no truck in dealing with homophobia in the same way as we'd deal with racism."

What about those who dissaprove of homosexuality on religious grounds such as Christians and Muslims? I would be wary about treating homophobia in the same way as racism. While the majority of people may be tolerant of homosexuality that doesn't make them approving. It may take another generation or so for that to occur:

http://www.mori.com/polls/2000/m000127.shtml

[buxtehude]

Isn't this pretty simple? We should treat all people with respect, we shouldn't discriminate against anyone for their race, gender or sexual orientation, indeed we should make special efforts to make people feel welcomed who might in the past have felt unwelcome.

But let's not think we're being especially clever in doing that. Our main effort should be in developing policies that make life better for the entire population. Being nice is no substitute for getting things done. Our efforts to be nice should not be taken as a cover for having nothing else to say!

[Account Deleted]

It is a bit nauseating when people are too 'inclusive'. I have to say I hold quite strong views on, for example, faith schools, but I don't think all religious people are bad. I don't want to have to pretend that I love religious people and want to hold them all to my bosum...

As long as people are prepared to live and let live then that is the main thing. Most voters also don't really care that much about gay rights one way or the other - although they don't like to hear hatred spouted either. But they also don't like to hear hatred spouted at people who don't believe in civil unions or gay adoption - Both of which I, as a gay man, support.

Interestingly, most gay people often have people (hello mum) who are very nice but uncomfortable with gay people. So bashing anyone who believes in traditional families and is religious puts people off as well, which too much 'inclusivity' can lead to - as we all (even us metropolitan gays) know that there are lots of decent but tragically not always as accepting as they could be people out there.

[Richard]

"This is how ridiculous homophobia looks to those people who simply don't understand peoples' unhealthly obsession with other peoples' sex lives."

Unfortunately it is this aggressive attitude that often hinders the attempt to increase acceptance of homosexuality. You may (with good reason) think homophobia is absurd but attacking those who are homophobic won't win them over.

You used reasoned arguments to put forward your case against anti-immigrant sentiment on previous threads. May we have more on this thread?

[James Maskell]

I hate it when political parties deliberately go out to court the gay vote. We shouldnt need to cut them apart from everyone else and be extra nice. Going to watch Brokeback Mountain...fine, do that, but dont bring a press pack with you. Its incredibly fake.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

It's infuriating articles like this that leave me so utterly disillusioned by modern politics.

Yes, the Conservatives should be looking to broaden their appeal and attract as much support as possible BUT surely this can be achieved by developing a policy platform that caters for all sections of British society which prioritises the major issues rather than constantly pandering to the agenda of the gay rights lobby through tick-box inclusivity?

[Moralz]

"Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, not all this nonsense again. And reading some of the bullet points, i can't help but laugh at the desperate lengths the tories are going to appear pink friendly. Yes, Conservative support rises amongst the gay population, but plummets amongst Conservative voters who feel abandoned as Cameron 'reaches out' by seemingly sacrificing every Tory principle there is."

Er...Tim...which "Tory Principle" favours homophobia?

[True Blue]

Unfortunately it is this aggressive attitude that often hinders the attempt to increase acceptance of homosexuality. You may (with good reason) think homophobia is absurd but attacking those who are homophobic won't win them over.

You used reasoned arguments to put forward your case against anti-immigrant sentiment on previous threads. May we have more on this thread?

Thank you for these sentiments. I appreciate them.

A short answer is, swap "homosexuality" with "racism" in this debate, and you'll see why I think that this isn't reasonable.

If you don't like a whole class of people because of their nature, and that nature does not cause them to do harm to others, then the problem is with you, whatever your reason for that belief, relgious or otherwise. There are plenty of religions around which see black people as inferior. If you swap "being gay" with "being black" in any of the anti-gay arguments above, you'll see what I mean.

None of the people who posted on the immigration thread changed their views one iota, certainly judging by their posts on the BNP thread. If a single person posts here saying otherwise then I will be very pleasantly suprised.

I'd really like to see a poll on this issue, immigration, capital punishment, marriage and Europe to see where people really stand, as opposed to just the people who post.

[Moralz]

p.s. Uniform statements of belief for members are a ghastly idea.

[Richard]

"A short answer is, swap "homosexuality" with "racism" in this debate, and you'll see why I think that this isn't reasonable."

I expect what allows people to distinguish is the fact that race is a physical aspect whereas homosexuality is to do with behaviour. People find it more socially acceptable to judge people on their behaviour than on how they look. The counter argument of course is that a)homosexuals, like blacks are born how they are and b)homosexuals don't behave in a way that is socially destructive.

[johnC]

I think the point to be made about traditional Christianity is that it sets up an ideal of behaviour to which believers should aspire. In this ideal sexual relations only take place within the relationship of marriage. The homosexual aspect is a bit of a red herring as the same prohibition applies to extra-marital heterosexual sex as well. It should be seen in the same light as the commandment to the rich man to sell everything he has and give to the poor (Luke 18:22). It is a standard of perfection to which, human nature being what it is, not everyone can realistically aspire, and it was not intended as the basis of a 21st century political party policy. We are also told not to judge others (Luke 6:37). End of sermon.

[Andy Peterkin]

"Just for the record, I'm not a member of the Labour party. I have no idea where you would get that from."

Well, actually from two sources, one in our Party and another from Labour, but if that's your line, I've no evidence I can adduce to the contrary without breaking confidences.

+++++

Any increase in support is welcome. For myself, I have no interest what people choose to do in the privacy of their own bedroom, nor should it be any business of the state's.

However, I'd endorse the comments above about group politics - it is an instrument of the enemy, designed to make minority groups feel that only the state can protect and further their interests. It actually hinders the process of integration and acceptance which started in 1968, and is, make no mistake, still ongoing.

I also find hilarious the idea that it is only "right-wing bigots" who are homophobic. Has the author been to a working mens club recently?

[Chad]

p.s. Uniform statements of belief for members are a ghastly idea.

How about votes on uniform sets of belief, like Built To Last?

[Benjamin Cohen]

I'm not sure who your "source" is but I can guarantee that I am not a member of the Labour party. I purchased a poster from their website in 2001 so I guess you could count me as a donor. Maybe I'll get a peerage.

They must be confusing me with someone else, the rugby player perhaps.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"Tory support rises amongst gay voters".

I could n't care less. It won't persuade me, a heteroexual to vote Conservative, as much as I'd like to, and if I remember correctly it wont persuade some Scots voters either; they had a vote on whether they wanted S 28 abolished and they voted overwhelmingly that it should be retained.Guess what the Scots parliament voted to do? It is what is known as politicians like Maude listening to the public - no wonder he does n't believe the Tories will win the next election.
I am not homophobic - I have provided offsprings and grandchildren to look after homosexuals in their old age - someone has to. There are far more important question for the Tories that need an answer rather than worrying about the sexual lifestyle of a minority rejected by the majority. As long as it is not made compulsory (as queried by Richard North earlier).
The homosexuals must hope that the inclusiveness of Maude does not extend to wanting to adopt Sharia Law (perhaps after the Tories lose the next election or Iran developes its nuclear power - strictly for domestic purposes of course).

[Andy D]

The key point that I can see is contained within the first three words of the headline. It cannot be anything other than encouraging.

[Andrew]

"As long as it is not made compulsory"

Nice to see such sensible and considered comments on the issue *bonks head off wall*.

More generally, it's always amusing when people equate their psychological instincts with morality. Quite why so many are interested in the private bedroom antics of (anonymous) others is beyond me.

[True Blue]

I am not homophobic - I have provided offsprings and grandchildren to look after homosexuals in their old age - someone has to

"I'm not homophibic, but..."

This is wrong in so many ways I don't know where to start. You have a problem with people who choose not have children? Are unable to have children? And you have had children so they can look after you in your old age? I can't say I envy them, looking after the bigoted old git you might become sitting in the corner of the room watching tele at Christmas and moaning about all the "homosexualists" taking over the country.

I assume you'd have no problem with homosexuals adopting children to "look after them" in their old age? Or perhaps you are concerned they would use their homosexual powers to turn them gay, perhaps conspiring with their teachers now that there is no clause 28 to protect them?

I think letting a large proportion of the population know that they are no longer demonized by a party which had tried to legislate against them in the past is sensible. If it doesn't affect you, and doesn't mean anything to you why are you bothered about it? Worried we might lose the homophobic vote?

[True Blue]

However, I'd endorse the comments above about group politics - it is an instrument of the enemy, designed to make minority groups feel that only the state can protect and further their interests. It actually hinders the process of integration and acceptance which started in 1968, and is, make no mistake, still ongoing.

Until recently, gay people were subject to laws which did not apply to the rest of the population, criminilizing their behaviour.

It's all about removing the State's interference in peoples' affairs, not intruding in them. Letting people feel they can get on with their lives, minding their own business, without the State twitching at their curtains, judging them and telling them what to do.

[Graeme Archer]

I think I'm in love with True Blue. I have certainly joined the Benjamin Cohen fan club.

I thought you were all getting too serious. You know us gay men, so frivolous!

I'm just off to promote some homosexuality, on the council tax of course. Byeee!!

[Rick]

(based on Leviticus rather than Christ's own teachings).

Really ? So Jesus was not really a Jew ? He was not descended from Levites through Joseph and his cousin was not John The Baptist a descendant of Zadok ?

So presumably when Jesus was in The Temple debating with the scribes as a child he would not be Torah-conversant ?

I suppose this Jesus you mention would not be the one quoting Leviticus about loving thy neighbour as thyself ? It would not be the Jesus who was so biblically orthodox that his entire mission on earth involved recpeating the basics given to Moses and whose entire ministry was rooted in Orthodox Judaism of the Hillel School ?

I know what passes for "Christianity" nowadays is a bit New Age and crystal-oriented with a lot of Gnostic and Neo-Pagan ritual; but the Christianity which grew out of the ministry of Torah-observant Jews like Jesus of Nazareth and Saul of Tarsus tended to be fundamental in its reiteration of Judaism rather than the sybaritic lifestyle church of modern times.

Leviticus is interesting indeed, for it is the book where the rules of civil society and respect for God were laid down for the Jews as they entered the Promised Land - it is the basis of Judaism and Christianity, which itself is a reduced-form Judaism for Gentiles.

[Annabel Herriott]

What an interesting thread! I can cast a little light on why some old folk are homophobic. My partner is one. Naval Leut. in WW2. Used to court martial the poor lads! Absolutely dreadful. And he looks completely blank when I challenge him about it. He was a bit fazed when it emerged that my eldest is gay! But I am kind. He is a sweetie, and we cant all be perfect, so I tend not to dwell on his homophobia. The truly interesting thing, is that HIS youngest, unmarried daughter........ I'll leave that one right there. shall I?????

[True Blue]

I think I'm in love with True Blue. I have certainly joined the Benjamin Cohen fan club.

Is there any chance you would include RodS and Dontmakemelaugh in your outpouring of love? I'm sure they'd really appreciate it.

[John Hustings]

"Why does being pro family mean you're anti gay?"

Good question, I find it is not traditional conservatives that are the ones always linking the two. It is the so called social liberals that seem to think that any policy that favours marriage *must* be offensive to gay people. I myself am very tired of the gay agenda always being brought into any debate about marriage/families.

Furthermore, as JohnC wrote, if Christians disapprove of homosexuality, they also disapprove of extra-marital sex. That means a disapproval of a great deal of the lifetstyles in 20th Century Britain. But, as he says, it's an ideal and simply because most people don't meet that ideal doesn't mean that Christians "hate" them.

If you're asking people to "live and let live" then it should be a two way street. I'm not seeing much tolerance from the social liberals.

[Biodun]

It is the so called social liberals that seem to think that any policy that favours marriage *must* be offensive to gay people

Stop blaming the social liberals for everything! I would classify myself as socially liberal, but I agree with you that the above assertion is quite silly.

However, I do believe that there is some group out there pushing that line.

It's probably the same group that thinks that people of other faiths feel hurt and left out when we celebrate Christmas/Easter or that ethnic minorities don't like the Union Flag.

But it's not us (i.e. social liberals)!

[John Hustings]

Biodun, if that were the case, there would be no reason for the Conservatives not to unequivocally support marriage.

Any ideas why we don't? And if they don't, which section of the party is stopping us from doing so?

[Sean Fear]

In fact, Portillo explicitly made the point that providing tax advantages for married couples is offensive to gay people. I've no idea whether that's true of course, but I suspect that there's a variety of opinions.

[Biodun]

if that were the case, there would be no reason for the Conservatives not to unequivocally support marriage

What statements or incidents are you referring to specifically that indicate we equivocally support marriage?
Do you mean our support for Civil Partnerships?

BTW, I've never heard this Portillo example before as quoted by Sean Fear. Is there some link to it?

I think people read too much into statements where we express support for non-standard families. I hardly think any such expressions mean we are withdrawing some support for marriage.
It's not a zero-sum game.

If that is the case, then aren't you doing the same thing you accuse the "social liberals" of -assuming that two issues which can easily sit side-by-side are mutually exclusive?

[True Blue]

Good question, I find it is not traditional conservatives that are the ones always linking the two. It is the so called social liberals that seem to think that any policy that favours marriage *must* be offensive to gay people. I myself am very tired of the gay agenda always being brought into any debate about marriage/families

Do point me at any quote from any Conservative who has said this. You are setting up strawmen and knocking them down.

[Sean Fear]

"BTW, I've never heard this Portillo example before as quoted by Sean Fear. Is there some link to it?"

It was in his Sunday Times column on 9th April. In fairness, I think Portillo is more social democrat than social liberal.

[True Blue]

I apologize. I did find a Conservative who said this, although I'm not sure modern Portillo counts:

http://abercf.blogspot.com/2006/04/michael-portillo-gives-advice-to-david.html

A few years ago he was supporting the policy himself, the flip-flopper.

[John Hustings]

"What statements or incidents are you referring to specifically that indicate we equivocally support marriage?
Do you mean our support for Civil Partnerships?"

No, to me that has nothing to do with supporting marriage.

I am thinking specifically of Ken Clarke withdrawing any tax incentives for marriage in the 1990s because he thought it "outdated".

Furthermore, I'm thinking of Tim Yeo and Michael Portillo expressing their view that David Cameron's early declaration of support for tax incentives for married couples was a mistake.

Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that David Cameron himself is going to campaign very hard on this policy (that's if he sticks to it at all).

It appears that in the minds of the "modernisers", it is wrong to even mention marriage because of the fear that it will give the wrong impression.

This is in spite of the fact that marriage is one of the great medicines for curing our current social malaise. To me it has nothing to do with gay people.

[Al Gunn]

Ruddy marvellous news! There are lots of people who would vote Tory but do not because they see us as awful people. Gay people are very much affected by that.

It is one thing pandering to a specific interest group but quite another going out of your way to dispell myths about the group you are involved in.

It pleases me to see that one of the myths about Conservatism (that it is anti-gay) is being dispelled. More people will now be receptive to our political agenda and more prepared to ignore the other myths about our party's unifying principles (e.g. that we are anti-working class).

[John Hustings]

"It pleases me to see that one of the myths about Conservatism (that it is anti-gay) is being dispelled."

It would be better to dispell the myth that we were anti-gay than to pretend that we are "changing" by moving from being anti-gay to pro-gay.

This is obviously not the case, because we were not anti-gay before.

[Rob G]

John H; there would be no reason for the Conservatives not to unequivocally support marriage. Any ideas why we don't?

I thought we did. Built to Last says that governement should support families and marriage.

[Rick]

or that ethnic minorities don't like the Union Flag.

Then I suggest they live in a country with a flag they do like.

Myself I don't like the fact the police aren't armed as they are in Ireland North and South, but that is the price we pay for high property crime.

There are lots of things I don't like but I haven't seen anybody like Ann Owers or others helping me out.

[Rick]

there would be no reason for the Conservatives not to unequivocally support marriage. Any ideas why we don't?

Simply because politicians nowadays are unrepresentative of the nation insofar as their own relationships are odd, dysfunctional, hypocritical, or non-existent in a higher proportion than one would expect - as such they do not really uphold the values the electorate on average wishes to uphold.

[Jack Stone]

Now that we have gay civil partnerships then I see no reason that if you support marriage through the tax system you should also support civil partnerships as well.
To support one over the other would not only be unfair it would also send the message to people that we favour one over the other which we should not.

[John Coles]

Oh. joy! We're winning the homosexual vote!
Meanwhile, outside the M25,.........

[Henry Whitmarsh]

There are gay people outside the south east you know.

[Chad]

Henry,

I think John was making a reference to the narrow focus this "right on" (focussing on 'trendy' groups and issues - not treating all people equally) approach appeals to.

I think the perfect embodiment of the Cameroons are those two guys in Knife and Packer's "It's Grim Up North London" in Private Eye. They must be Cameroons, surely?

[Rick]

I see no reason that if you support marriage through the tax system you should also support civil partnerships as well.
To support one over the other would not only be unfair

Fair is not Life Jack Stone and you will learn that as you get older. It is not fair that sisters living in a house or parent and child may be forced into homelessness to pay death duties or long-term care.

It is a fact that Marriage was for the procration of children and that is why it was tax-favoured. The fact is that a civil partnership cannot be consummated in law, but has tax and other privleges not available to other same-sex couples in a household who are prevented from engaging in civil partnerships simply because the government chose to structure civil partnerships like "marriages" rather than unconsummated "civil partnerships"

Don't speak of discrimination because this has created a whole new class of disadvantaged simply because they cannot form civil partnerships and you cannot explain why fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, aunts and nieces, sisters, brothers - should not form civil partnerships.

[John Hustings]

Jack Stone just proved my point:

It's not social conservatives that always connect marriage with the gay agenda.

I'd rather we accepted that favouring marriage has nothing to do with discriminating against gay people, it has to do with helping children.

[Ted]

Rick
The issue of family inheritance is a diversion and nothing to do with Civil Patnerships.

It's about recognising an emotional & loving relationship in law. Family members have recognition already in law as for example as next of kin. Prior to Civil Partnerships a gay man or woman had no standing in law regarding their partner. Families could refuse them access to a dying partner's deathbed, a gay man dying intestate would see his estate shared amongst family members with no rights for his partner. A man & woman can marry to create this prime relationship but two people of the same sex sharing the same committment to each other could not.

There is an entirely separate injustice as regards family members sharing a home - which is about the unfairness of an inheritance tax and social care system.

[John Coles]

It's SO sensible of you to raise these matters, Ted. If we can get these matters straight (sorry, resolved) then the party will be in a very strong position in the eyes of the millions who, until now, have withdrawn their support since the glory days of yore. And, of course, when pressed on tiresome matters like the EU and immigration we can point to the fact that we have won the approval of Benjamin Cohen, Frank Young, Eugene et al with our gay-inclusive policies. That'll convince them.

[Nick King]

A very interesting thread this one, a shame I have come to it a little late.

I think the most pertinent point is that society has changed and, with the exception of a few people with out dated and bigoted views, most voters could not care less about one's sexuality. Being gay, (and indeed the owner of the local gay club) didn't stop me being elected in a formerly Lib Dem seat last year with 68% of the vote and a swing of 34%.

Reaching out to the gay community shows that the Conservative Party doesn't care about sexuality either. That's important because the impression since Clause 28 has been that we did care and we didn't approve.

The gay community isn't looking for any favours, just equality. This doesn't mean positive discrimination, but does mean that we have to show that we are no longer discriminatory. Clause 28 did a lot of damage but we are turning the corner and presenting ourselves credibly as a non judgemental party for whom a group, who should be part of our natural constituency, are eager to vote.

[Richard]

"Clause 28 did a lot of damage but we are turning the corner and presenting ourselves credibly as a non judgemental party for whom a group, who should be part of our natural constituency, are eager to vote."

The reason for its implementation was because (and Francis Maude admits this) Loony Left Councils were going OTT in an attempt to promote homosexual equality to the dissaproval of many parents. This might explain why even though attitudes have become more tolerant, the majority continued to support Section 28.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Section 28 really says it all. It became one of the few causes, apart from civil partnerships, which united the entire gay community. It also served to condition the school experience of an entire generation of vulnerable gay people. Why? The lie has always been that Section 28 was designed to stop the "promotion" of homosexuality. Was it? No. It was actually designed to institutionalise homophobia, preventing its discussion or even its acknowledgement. How was a teacher supposed to properly address the situation when a pupil is being bullied/assaulted? Still, times change.

[arthur]

Isnt time wonderful, reading these comments, that this argument is going on in the 'TORY Party'. Take yourselves back to 1984 when Ken (Red Ken)Livingstone was being vilified by the Tory party, the Tory press, every single big gun of the British right was turned on that man. His pro-gay agenda was just poison to them. Now he's David Cameron's guru, read a KL speech from that time, Cameron has adopted Ken's social agenda 100%. C'mon you lot, lets hear it, 'Sorry Ken you were right, we were wrong'

We're All Socialists Now, with a little 's' of course.

[Graham D'Amiral]

Looking back over these posts I'm glad to see the vast majority of contributors have been very positive about how the Conservative Party should engage with the gay community to ensure that not only are we tolerant of different lifestyles but we welcome diversity as a stength of modern Britain not a weakness.

Over the last 20 years attitudes to homosexuality have changed a great deal and that change has been for the better. Prejudice, ignorance and discrimination are the weapons of those who fear change and struggle to understand the nature of 21st century Britain.

Individual freedom is as core conservative value, we believe that everyone has the right to live their own life as they see fit providing it does not cause harm to anyone else. Applying that principle to sexuality means vigorously defending the right of gay and lesbian people to live their life free of ignorance and hatred from the rest of society.