I would like to mirror what Varnent says and give my own perspective. It has long been my policy to stay as far away from ArbCom as possible. If I'm any sort of queen, drama queen is not it. The occasional times I have to visit WP:ANI, I get a slightly sinking feeling in my stomach. I agree with Mary J. Blige in condemning drama. 

 In response to the question you pose regarding openly gay editors and harassment, I shall say this: I'm an openly gay Wikipedia admin, and I edit under my real name, which is linked to my blog which has a number of posts on LGBT-related themes, and I do occasionally make edits to LGBT-related articles on-wiki (most recently, Ian Buist and Rupert Croft-Cooke), although it isn't a large part of what I do. Personally, I haven't been the victim of any harassment over my sexual orientation on Wikipedia. Which is good. I'm thankful that this is not the case. My desire to not be the subject of any harassment is part of the reason I avoid the drama boards these days with the sort of fervency that Jainists avoid stepping on bugs. 

 With the greatest respect, the post you've made on the workshop page is not likely to receive the sort of response you wish it to have. Those who have been subject to harassment are not likely to jump in and explain their story in the middle of a contentious ArbCom debate where claims and counter-claims over harassment and homophobia are flying around and make up the subject matter of the case in question. It should be fairly obvious why. 

 If I had been the subject of sexual orientation-related harassment on the basis of my Wikipedia activities, the absolute last place I'm likely to post about it is in the middle of an ArbCom case of this nature. Having spoken to people who have been the subject of harassment related to their Wikipedia activity (though not on the grounds of them being LGBT), the effect of such harassment is to induce a chilling effect on the sort of behaviour one engages in on-wiki. I hope the Arbitration Committee don't conclude that there is no issue to worry about if nobody answers on the workshop page... it just means that if there is a problem, those suffering the problem have decided to not make a fuss about it in public. 

 And if you don't get people stepping up to tell you about harassment, I don't blame them. Off-wiki, I'm a campaigning shouting ranting political type on equality and calling out homophobia all over the damn place. But I'm here to build an encyclopaedia, not to fight the next civil rights campaign (see aforementioned dramaphobia). I'm out because I don't like lying about myself by omission, not in order to make myself into a scapegoat. The same is true for LGBT editors generally, both out and not-out. 

 Do I see problematic behaviour on Wikipedia over gay issues? Well, one little example as an illustration of the issue. I see accusations of people having an agenda quite frequently. Accusing editors of having agendas often breaches WP:AGF, but accusing editors of having a specifically gay agenda (see Homosexual agenda) has a particularly powerful punch. It supports the Big Lie perpetuated by homophobes, that gay people are trying to recruit children, with the underlying accusation that gay people are all menacing paedophiles, card-carrying members of NAMBLA. Are there people who, say, edit war on Wikipedia over the sexual orientation of BLPs? Sure. Do they have an agenda? Sure. But the use of the phrase "gay agenda" or "queer agenda" or whatnot brings to fore this ugly stereotype, which is trotted out time and time again by people who absolutely loathe gay people with every ounce of their being... and that really fucking stings. Plenty of gay people laugh it off, joke about it, even make iPhone apps about it, but underlying it is the worst kind of scaremongering prejudice: "they are coming for your children". 

 Anyway, just my perspective. —