People in the media sometimes make the reverse kind of leap, they'll argue (completely openly or a bit below the surface) that "If you're denying what I say, or if you say my arguments (or my LGBT buddy's arguments) or my choice of loaded words don't hold water or could be used, in another context, for dubious ends, then you are really homophobic, that's what drives your arguments - why else would you be doing this petty arguing with me/with us?" The arguments that are under fire don't even have to be about LGBT issues as such, all it takes is that one or more of the people delivering the argument is LGBT or wants very badly to come across as pro-LGBT.
That's a gratifying way to bring your case today because argument and presentation of points of view in the media have become so personalized: it's often more important to cut an attractive figure than to present a valid argument, the message is heavily identified with the one who offers a face for it, and of course no one wants to make people think one might be a homophobe (or a misogynist).
It's also a way to make quick black headlines. You don't really have to show that your argument is sound anymore, all you have to do if you have a columnist position, a standing outlet for writing reviews or op-ed pieces or a decently read blog is to show up how some figure your target audience won't like had trouble with what you said last week and start yelling this person's a homophobe. Or saying "we didn't get this story, or this show, or this take on things, widely noticed which proves the media or the general culture hates gay people". I have real issues with this kind of debating, because I think arguments in the public realm should be based on general principles that can apply to all of us, can be carried by all, and lines of argument that can be shown, tried and tested by anyone who so wishes essentially without bothering if they be straight or gay, male or female, native or immigrant, as long as they are honest. I want that kind of general validity aimed at in public argument, at least as a standard - certainly if it's ultimately about bringing in new legislation, or about how public authorities or public education should be working; that kind of thing shouldn't just be motivated by wanting to please this or that "identity group". But these days identity wooing seems to be the preferred way to drive support to your cause, or to get your stuff read.
Obviously one principle I regard as self-evident is that no one should be discriminated against for their gender or sexual orientation. But to me that doesn't have the corollary that gays are always morally superior or have outstanding valid demands on everything just because of their sexual orientation - that's part of the kind of argument pushing I'm thinking of. For instance, if a guy writes (this is one I saw in a paper here) that "doctors hate gays" because these docs have imposed a longer time of quarantine for blood donorship on self-avowed gays and lesbians who have been sexually active at a given time and want to give blood, that argument is bollocks to me,. the real reason for that kind of quarantine is to minimize the risk to those who would receive the blood from getting infected with STDs, especially HIV. And like it or not, the rates of some STDs, and certainly HIV, are much higher among gays and lesbians, outside of Africa, than among heteros, if other risk factors (substance abuse etc) don't enter the equation. So security overrides any need to take an "extra fair" stance to homosexual blood donors here. The argument "if your kid were in a car crash and they had to get fresh blood really fast, would you want to indulge your homophobia or would you want to see your child live?" isn't valid either. Once the blood has been donated it is not labeled as to what actual person gave it, everyone knows that. But to some people, the point that terms of security in use of the blood must come first seems to count as homophobic, because it hurts somebody's feelings, or somebody's need to feel on top.