Whilst, initially, to many people, this might seem infuriating and to be a rather dated point of view, I think that perhaps it's easy to forget the underlying truths that underpin this perception and the other commercial interests of a right-wing newspaper that nurture this point of view.
Firstly, it appears that she's suggesting that, as is well documented, gay people tend to live a more drink/drug-fuelled, promiscuous lifestyle which could be an attribute to the death of Stephen Gately. As she points out, George Michael is a perfect example of this stereotype playing out to be entirely true. Although there are many gay people who live their lives free from drink/drugs and sleep with a small number of people, if i'm honest, I don't know all that many of them. It's not all that unreasonable for people to associate these traits with gay men if it's so common and being presented so publicly, especially if you happen to be living in some village where your sole daily inlet of news is The Daily Mail and Sky News.
Of course, I would argue that these traits are found in many straight people. Amy Winehouse, Pete Doherty and many others are, of course, again well-documented examples of this lifestyle. But, despite this being an incredibly valid opinion, it ignores, what I feel to be, the most important reason Jan Moir and other columnists write articles of this nature.
At the end of the day, the Daily Mail's primary objective is to sell newspapers, not bring the public the news. Certainly in times of recession, but even when the financial climate is less turbulent, newspapers are desperate to drive circulation up, therefore increasing their advertising profit margins. We musn't forget that, to a certain extent, newspapers are writing what their audience wants to hear. Why would someone want to continue buying a newspaper that throws their personal opinions back in their face?
If you take a look at Moir's writing for the Telegraph, or even the Guardian, you'll notice that it's very different. The right-wing, homophobic battle-axe has been replaced with a homely, aunty figure talking about life in general.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/dec/14/christmas-dinner-advice
My main point is that it's easy to criticise Jan Moir's article in the Mail, treating it as her personal opinion. But in doing that, aren't we forgetting to question the real problem, the Daily Mail readership that's thirsty for all this? And if that's what they want, that'll be what commercial directors at newspapers will want to produce. And who produces that? Journalists. So really, isn't Jan Moir, like all the other writers, just trying to hold on to her job? And in times of recession, who can be blamed for that?
So, to all you people spending time on Twitter and Facebook or commenting on newspaper websites, perhaps your time would be better spent pointing the finger at the right-wing views of the general public and doing something to change it.
