You are probably right, but if it's done with thought, it might not be a bad thing.
Part of the reason that groups representing sexuality issues were vulnerable to this is that some elements of the political lobby and culture were not well thought out or poorly expressed. Many people who maybe realized that thought that it wasn't too important if it supported the main point, and anyway, no one would take it too far, right? Too much was tied to ideas like acceptance without exception, love is love, if you are born that way it must be ok, and so on.
It also became enmeshed with identity politics, which I think has probably been toxic to every area it has touched, and as a result it was too much associated with an often reactionary political progressivism. People who weren't politically progressive tended to stay away, partly because they didn't see their political views as very tied to their sexuality, so why be politically active mainly in that sphere? And similarly, especially with gay men, people who weren't on board with an everything goes attitude to sex tended to stay away.
As a result what was originally conceived as a rights movement for a very specific set of ideas became almost a political ideology that included quite a lot of elements, and anyone who wasn't on board with any of it being increasingly branded as homophobic.
It would not be a bad thing to distangle all of that and reject what was bad.