Someone said :
It's getting pretty fucking ridiculous at this stage. Just go with "not straight" and that should cover everyone.
Not quite, as you have the g0ys and MSM (Men who have sex with men but consider themselves straight [SMSM])
And with not straight you care not covering the straight, and you are also exclusively focusing on sexuality, to the exclusion of gender (which the "T" embodies the most): a good chunk of transsexual/transgender people see themselves as straight (or desiring to transition to a gender that will identify them as such).
It is a very straight-centric vision
It does not mean that I agree with the multiplication of labels/letters. Or that I oppose it.
Thus the advantage of the term "queer" (maybe too american) or "gay community" (maybe too male-oriented). But again not all will recognize themselves under such an umbrella term. I have little to no preference and I can understand the dilemma of people who have to create an inclusive "identity" for their organization, publication, group, etc.
Mind you, there will always be people who do not recognize themselves under an umbrella term any way. Labels are mostly useful when facing a threat, and are defined by that threat. When the threat is gone, it is mostly intellectual onanism.