Earlier this month, Mordechai Ovits posted this thoughtful piece on why all the fundamentalists hate the LGBTQ+ community and culture. It sounds completely plausible to me:
𝗚𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗮𝘆 𝗔𝘄𝗮𝘆
One major reason why the Orthodox Jewish world and other fundamentalist religions are so freaked out by the LGBT movement is that the movement employs a new form of argumentation, one that is extremely dangerous to fundamentalism.
In the past, religion had authority. When societal changes happened or were happening, the new rules of society were remapped onto religion and existing texts through interpretation: the religion and its texts meant that new thing and always had. While those societal changes were happening and being fought over, both sides of the fight were grounded in religious interpretation: they both agreed that religion had authority, they just differed on what religion said. Sometimes one side won out, and sometimes it led to a schism, but it was still religion vs religion.
This was true even when the text compared to the changes stretched credulity. If the text said: ואיש כי־יתן מום בעמיתו כאשר עשה כן יעשה לו If any party maims another [person]: what was done shall be done in return— שבר תחת שבר עין תחת עין שן תחת שן כאשר יתן מום באדם כן ינתן בו fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The injury inflicted on a human being shall be inflicted in return.
Then the religion could still change to say "it actually always meant to pay a fine." The interpretation (successfully!) served to retain the authority of religion and the text. You could even rewire an entire religion by collecting the changes into an authoritative collection of interpretations, v"y. Or write them in a sequel: the New Testament. Or in a sequel to the sequel: The Book of Mormon. But those societies were still ruled by religion.
This granting religion authority even over changes in societal rules that it had been against went on for millennia, and in various forms. When Henry the VIII wanted to get divorced, he didn't just "go secular" and say the hell with what religion said. He still needed to grant religion authority, which he did by founding the Church of England. He got his divorce, but religion was considered authoritative by the society.
The LGBT movement doesn't do that. They make their argument for society to be run by new rules without granting religion authority. If you cite the Bible or religion against them, they say SFW? They don't care what the Bible says. They don't explain why the rules they want are justified by the authority of religion. (What religion there is among the LGBT movement is nearly 100% non-fundamentalist, so it already grants religion no authority, effectively considering it a culture.)
This is a huge change from the past. It's easy to miss this monumental shift in argumentation since it's still "two sides fighting over a societal rule change." To really highlight the shift it's helpful to take note of the few pro-LGBT voices who *didn't* make that shift, the people on the left edge of fundamentalism who are still employing the old style of argumentation. People like Rabbi Steven Greenberg, the Open Orthodox, etc. They still do the old style of justification for the new rule: they say the relevant text actually only meant gay rape, really meant blah blah blah. When you see them do it, it brings into relief just how bluntly the larger pro-LGBT movement *doesn't* do it, not even the religious members of the movement. But it used to be the *only* way. Now, not only does the LGBT movement not employ it, but the few people like Rabbi Greenberg who do employ it are hopelessly marginalized. The LGBT movement doesn't need that style of argumentation; the movement is still winning. Meanwhile, modernity has made it nearly impossible to "forget" what the text meant. Does anybody actually believe them that the anti-gay verses really meant their interpretation? Nope. So the people on the fundamentalist side of the fight can't and won't make use of that style, and the people on the non-fundamentalist side have no need of it, dooming Rabbi Greenberg et al's work to futility.
The LGBT movement freaks the fundamentalists out so much partly because that movement is winning -- changing the rules of society -- without kissing the ring of religion or granting it authority. It's a new phenomenon, and it represents a grave danger to fundamentalism.