I shall try to be temperate.
i think we'd get bombed...
religious countries could declare some war on sinners... we'd be an easy target.
dispersed, they can't kill us off in one attack.
not everyone is against us
There does not seem to be any reason in this progression, nor does there seem to be much rationality. I would dismiss it as raving, but I cannot, because it has come up before.
1 This 'Bombing' Thing
Bombing is expensive. It is also not reasonably classed in the category of 'easy things.' While there really are state-actors which have demonstrated both the capacity and the willingness to bomb, a great many states with the capacity to bomb generally refrain from doing so. A great many states just don't realistically have the capacity to bomb. I suspect it may be a large majority of states.
Location is important in the real world. If a thing, like a sovereign Gay nation, has material reality, it has a location in space. This is just true. This hypothetical conversation absolutely requires a physical location before it can reasonably proceed. Then we need to fuss about the vile specifics of the instruments of war. Does the verb 'bomb' actually mean bombs that are dropped from planes? Does it include the wide array of missiles that various states have constructed to molest each other with?
Cato Island is difficult to get to as a tourist. It isn't any easier to get to as a bombardier. The list of states that lack the means to even attempt to bomb Cato Island is very long. The list of states that do possess the means is not trivial, but it's not a long list. I will grant that Russia, in my mind, counts as one of these 'religious states.' Russia is most assuredly on the list of states that can, in theory, project military force to Cato Island. They may not do so on a whim, however. Just leaving Russian airspace would disturb one or two or three other prominent states. Additionally, and this is an important part, Russia has, despite its demonstrated religiosity, several other concerns. Someone with a greater familiarity of Russia could probably list the many things Russia might prefer to do with its weapons that are more important than bombing Cato Island to get rid of both the nasty homos there and the symbolism of a sovereign Gay State.
The name of the French island that some Republic or other has put forward as a physical location escapes me, but it is very nearly impossible to get there as a casual tourist. Serious tourists can manage, but there we're properly in the realm of 'adventurers' having 'adventures,' not 'tourists' paying a visit to a remote beach. The French military manages to visit from time to time, but even they find it a costly proposition. Sending carrier-based planes, long range bombers, or comparatively sophisticated missiles are all options, but the list of states that possess such weapons of war is, as I have said, short. 'Bombing' that tiny island (assuming that the technically difficult task is defined as 'likely successful') would require a major expenditure of capital, including political capital. I cannot conjure up a realistic fictional scenario wherein any of the greater powers does anything of the sort.
2 The 'Religious Countries' Thing
There are religious countries. Religious countries have, in the past, declared war for reasons which seem vacuous and absurd to me (but clearly, not to them). Sure. Which countries am I to quake in my closet about? Countries in the Middle East have a well-founded concern about the missiles and airplanes possessed by Iran, but countries outside the Middle East very rationally place Iran somewhat lower on their list of concerns.
It has been my observation that most of the countries with the most universally virulent contempt for Gay people lack the ability to project military force for any appreciable distance beyond their borders. 'Appreciable' is the operative word here. 'Near' their borders is not the same thing at all as 'far from their borders.' This is a reason to refrain from visiting those hateful places. If one were to found a hypothetical Gay State, proximity to one of these states would be ill-advised in the extreme. The idea that the entire planet constitutes 'proximity' to hostile theocracies is absurd and not worth entertaining.
3 The 'Dispersed Defense Against One Attack' Thing
This is where my sympathy for clinical madness starts to become aroused.
'One Attack.'
We have, it seems, really been discussing the possibility of a Gay rendition of Hiroshima. I understand.... Here I thought 'conventional warfare' was absurd enough. We're talking about nuclear war. Huh. Few countries are physically capable of such a feat at all. Depending on location, even fewer countries are physically capable of successfully completing such an attack.
Population dispersal is a relic of the Cold War. It is intended to survive nuclear attack. Am I really to argue about whether China, Russia, or the United States are willing to lob an intercontinental ballistic missile at the homos or not? Yes... well... those things are expensive. Just the delivery system is expensive. Apart from their unseemly (and criminal) utility, nuclear weapons function more as 'crown jewels' than as tools. To the best of my recollection, you can count the number of historical nuclear attacks on one hand that's missing three fingers. While past performance is no guarantee of future results, I really don't think the potential threat of intercontinental missiles should be allowed to influence Gay policy. I absolutely will not endorse even the idea of population dispersal as a safeguard against it. The likelihood that the destruction of a hypothetical Gay State will be the third hostile nuclear detonation in world history is... low.
4 The 'Not Everyone Is Against Us' Thing
Everyone isn't against us and that's why we may not permanently congregate in groups lest we form a convenient target for an annihilating airstrike.
That right there... that makes my sympathy for clinical madness go into full bloom.
There is something psychological here, possibly psychiatric. I don't say that to be cruel or to demean. I mention it only because this string of postulates has come up before. This is not a novel situation. It's not even a rare situation. It's common. It has come up more frequently than I am comfortable with. Several people have argued this, and the nonsense of it is staggering.
We cannot have our own country because 'they' will massacre us if we come to 'their' attention.
Who is this 'they?'
I believe that, while prudence is always a virtue in government, a Gay State would have comparatively little to fear from state-actors. By 'comparatively little' I mean very nearly nothing at all. War is expensive and difficult to do. It upsets the neighbors.
Non-state-actors are a different matter entirely. A Gay State would, I think, have much reason to be concerned about attacks from non-state-actors. I have two reasons for this belief. First, most states today have very reasonable concerns about non-state-actors. Some of these states are more histrionic than others, but their concerns are reasonable. Why would a Gay State be exempt from such concerns? Second, as anyone who can read can testify, non-state-actors have been waging a bloody war against the Gay people for many decades. Gays are attacked, tortured, and murdered, pretty much everywhere in the world, as far as I can tell. Sometimes these acts are not whimsical flights of fancy; they are committed in an organized and systemic manner. That's history, and that's now. You cannot avert the possibility of attacks that are already underway or have already happened.
There is no reason to believe that a hypothetical Gay State, even on some remote island in the Pacific, would be forever immune from attack by non-state-actors. A Gay State would, however, have many if not all of the resources that other states currently employ to combat such attacks. In the absence of a Gay State, the Gay people have only what they, individually, can provide. More often than not, this amounts to nothing at all.
Certainly not 'everyone' is against us, but some people are. In some places, this 'some' constitutes a majority. In others, the 'some' is just some. Those who are 'against us' are often plentiful enough to produce constituencies capable of swaying even large secular democracies. The existence of this 'some' is not a argument for hiding from them; it is an argument for organizing a defense against them. That, in some places, this 'some' is smaller in number than it has been in the past is not an argument for inactivity; it's an argument for even more assertive organization.