It depends, I believe, on the people. Culture unites, but it also separates.

• There is no encompassing or inclusive culture which unites all of us. And once you have a culture, it will sooner or later split up (again).
• That is no problem as long as the centrifugal forces are counter-balanced by centripetal forces, but that balance is extreme unstable. Ask yourself: would any LGBT-culture be entirely homogeneous in itself and by itself?
• Theoretically, one could set up a balance-sustaining super-culture above all separate cultures and subcultures, but practically that won't work for long: the same biological-psychological processes will be replicated on that supra-level again. Example: world politics versus national politics.
• It may even be a question of what is more effective and more satisfying for the development of mankind or humanity: uniformity or diversity?

It depends, I believe, on the people. Culture unites, but it also separates.

• There is no encompassing or inclusive culture which unites all of us. And once you have a culture, it will sooner or later split up (again).
• That is no problem as long as the centrifugal forces are counter-balanced by centripetal forces, but that balance is extreme unstable. Ask yourself: would any LGBT-culture be entirely homogeneous in itself and by itself?
• Theoretically, one could set up a balance-sustaining super-culture above all separate cultures and subcultures, but practically that won't work for long: the same biological-psychological processes will be replicated on that supra-level again. Example: world politics versus national politics.
• It may even be a question of what is more effective and more satisfying for the development of mankind or humanity: uniformity or diversity?

I am not a specialist in human science, therefore my answer do not reflect any scientific consensus I am aware of.

That being said, I think that it is quite easy for anyone interested in the queer community, to notice that various intellectual movements coexist and influence each others in the LBGT community. These movements being "born and breed" in the queer community, from social or political reflexion on real-world issues faced by LBGT persons.

As an example, let's consider "THE "EMPIRE" STRIKES BACK: A POSTTRANSSEXUAL MANIFESTO" (Sandy Stone, 93) [http://webs.ucm.es/info/rqtr/biblioteca/Transexualidad/trans%20manifesto.pdf]

This manifesto is well known in the transgender community. What's interesting is that beyond the argumentation developed in this manifesto "on it's own", the manifesto is also a response to a book. Namely "The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male" (Janice Raymond, 79).

Janice Raymond was by then already a scholar, she is now professor at University of Massachusetts Amherst. She is usually seen as a major figure in lesbian radical feminism. Even though, her writing on transgenderism has raised lot of controversy (which are discussed in the Transgender Manifesto).

What I think is interesting here, is that it shows that the words "LGBT culture", aren't adequate. This wording aggregates together theoretical writings, fashion, art, music, basically every cultural production from LBGT persons or that are popular in some LBGT groups.

Things are more complex and dynamic, as I tried to explain with the example of "Transgender Manifesto). Other aspects such as music or fashion aren't less important but I know them less.

I add an edit following the answer from Gennady Fedulov who has trouble understanding the concept of "LBGT".

I respectfully advise him to look for a nice solid wall, then to transfer kinetic energy between his head and said wall. Repeatedly

I'm trying to understand why such a concept as LGBT appeared in our time and is actively propagated. Who needs it and who is very interested in it? In my opinion, here there is such a thing as geopolitics as the main customer of this phenomenon. This is due primarily to the decomposition of the essence of a normal person and turning it into a foreign being. Ask the church about how it relates to the LGBT. Their answer will be negative. For example, my favorite composer Tchaikovsky was LGBT, but he suffered more than he was proud of and eventually committed suicide right after creating his brilliant sixth symphony with its tragic finale. Such tragic music can be created only in anticipation of death, Tchaikovsky did not want to live anymore. Of course there were a lot of outstanding people with LGBT, but they hardly ever were proud of it. Similarly, people with autism are not proud that they are autistic and every year the number of autistic people is born more and more all over the world. My opinion: let people with LGBT create their own communities of interest, but they do not need to be advertised and shown. Well, if they are advertised and shown, it means that someone needs it. Smoke without fire does not happen.

The current LGBT-culture would be a new outfit for an old structure, but it affected by different habits, religious-regulations, and cultural influences, in each geographical space. Generally, when there is no harm, there won't be any defenses; it means that the LGBT-groups' advertising would be an obvious indicative of some kind of harm or lack of human-rights; just the style of their defending happened to be a peaceful advertising.

It is irrelevant to imagine and create counter-productive cultures of LGBT. One has freedom for his thinking and styles. But such styles and such freedom only satisfies some ill and unhealthy minds and do not nurtures a healthy life.

Culture unites and segregates also, but it tries to nurture a society with some ideas and visions. I do not consider LGBT practices as a culture.

If there is an LGBT culture, which I respect and consider, it should not be limited that this group preserves and transmits this culture, in all the areas and topics that you mention in its brief introduction.