Homonationalism - portraying immigrants as a threat to LGBT+ rights - is a key rhetorical strategy used by right-wing parties across Europe. However, the relationship between this phenomenon and the growing independence of attitudes towards sociocultural issues remains underexplored. This article proposes a novel theoretical framework for understanding homonationalism, examining how the interplay between the political identities of homonationalist actors and their audience affects attitudes towards immigration and LGBT+ issues. It seeks to answer two primary research questions: (1) Can homonationalist rhetoric be causally linked to the growing independence of sociocultural attitudes (attitudinal unbundling)? (2) Does the latter arise from a progressive shift in traditional morality attitudes occurring simultaneously with a conservative variation in immigration attitudes (sexually-modern nativism)? To address these questions, this study employs a pre-registered survey experiment conducted in the UK. Participants are randomly exposed to homonationalist rhetoric from either a non-political or a right-wing political actor. In the former scenario, homonationalism increases sexually-modern nativist attitudes among right-wing respondents, who become both more nativist and more supportive of LGBT+ issues. In the latter scenario, respondents are receptive to the parts of the message that resonate with their pre-existing preferences: right-wing respondents become more anti-immigration, while left-wing respondents more supportive of LGBT+ issues. Overall, this article establishes a causal relationship between homonationalist rhetoric and attitudinal unbundling, thus bridging the literature on supply and demand-side homonationalism and exploring the effect of homonationalism when it comes from right-wing political vis-a-vis non-political actors.