You're right that there is no such thing as "gay ideology". Unfortunately though, the discussion isn't about that but rather "LGBT ideology", which isn't really well defined but my guess is the Poles mean something like "minority-oriented identity politics", perhaps combined with "non-child producing relationships are great and to be celebrated rather than merely tolerated". Consider that LGBT contains trans-sexuality which isn't the same thing as homosexuality, but it all gets grouped together.

As for being treated as second class citizens, well, it's worth studying why that happened to ensure there's no repeat of it. Historically speaking there's a correlation between homophobia and societies wealth, that is, wealthier societies have less of it and poorer societies have more of it. Or more accurately it's related to the size of the state. This is easy to understand in the context of how to support the elderly: in a poor country with a small state, the family unit is essential for social stability as people without children have no real way to support themselves in old age. Without any welfare state they become a burden on their neighbours.

So the social pressure to have children in poorer countries with weak welfare systems is understandably very large. About 10% of men are homosexual so a completely free and open gay-tolerant culture effectively requires villages and towns to support 10% of a childless male population in old age or sickness, something that's completely impossible without a large, sophisticated and consensually-based welfare state. Which of course most parts of the world didn't have for a very long time and many places still don't have. Social pressure on gay men to find a wife and have children despite their orientation was thus the only tool available.

Ex-Soviet states in particular are full of people who watched as a government that provided a lavish welfare state ended up collapsing completely, impoverishing millions. It's not a huge surprise that we see a lot of family-oriented conservatism there as a consequence. They have direct experience of the opposite approach failing them.

This sort of analysis matters because it suggests there might be a problem in future if we don't find ways to make society much more wealthy, due to the financial viability problems facing many pension schemes, large government deficits in many countries etc. Are the current levels of welfare state spending viable? I think they certainly can be, as there are countries with strong safety nets and balanced budgets. But in many western countries they're currently on borrowed time. At the moment politicians are trying to solve this via mass immigration to ensure the young population can still support the old, but that's increasingly facing pushback in Europe and America. If at some point the welfare state stops delivering on its promises and governments start slashing pension rights, as happened during the collapse of the USSR, then social pressure to have children will return and we might see anti-gay sentiment flare up again.

I don't like where this analysis leads, but fortunately I don't see any fundamental barriers to increasing productivity by a large amount and thus balancing the welfare books. As long as the welfare state is strong, LGBT people will be able to live in peace.