...Whilst I'm not in anyway denying anyone's rights to debate this topic in anyway, can I caution that we're discussing a very complicated topic in a very scatter-gun and general way.
A couple of points worth making:
We've already tossed around the term LGBT, which meant absolutely nothing in the 19th century. Yes, you can argue that it is a useful short-hand for the issues we are talking about, but in Victorian Britain, for example, the links between lesbianism and homosexuality among men to pick two parts of what is now considered the core of LGBT were not necessarily assumed to be linked. We're using modern terminology and ideas to talk about issues in the past, which never goes well.
Second, you can't use whether homosexuality is legal or not as a completely accurate yard-stick on how liberal as society is towards gay rights. You just can't - its too complex. Recent research, for example, looking at 19th century trials of homosexual men found that both juries and judges proposed and confirmed very minor punishments as often as they could out of sympathy with the defendants.
One of the problems with projecting back on the 19th century is that, in many countries, the legislation on homosexuality shifted back-and-forth in the period. Britain had been relatively permissive until a swing towards harsh punishment in the early 1800s, this then began to turn more lenient from the 1850s, although it was still illegal, and arguably the early 20th century was more intolerant of homosexuality than the late 19th if you look at sources like trials and public debates.