I can answer your question regarding Germany, at the very least: the answer is a definite "yes", even as far back as the late 19th century.

The penal code of the German Empire, from 1872 onwards, prohibited male-male sexual relations under Paragraph 175, putting it on the same level as bestiality. It stated: "Unnatural fornication, whether between persons of the male sex or of humans with beasts, is punished with imprisonment, with the further punishment of a prompt loss of civil rights."

August Bebel was a prominent figure in late 19th and early 20th century politics in Germany: having co-founded one of the parties that merged into the SPD (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, or Social Democratic Party of Germany, a party which still holds a prominent place in German politics today), he then led the SPD from 1892 until his death 1913. It was Bebel that, in 1898, delivered a petition to the Reichstag parliament calling for the repeal of Paragraph 175: it had 6000 signatories, of which Bebel himself had been among the first four. This petition had been drafted by Magnus Hirschfeld: a friend of Bebel from their university days, a prominent sexologist (and gay man himself), and founder of the organisation known as the WhK (Wissenschaftlich-humanitäres Komitee, or Scientific-Humanitarian Committee). Bebel had agreed to sponsor the WhK's efforts to repeal Paragraph 175.

On January 13th, 1898, Bebel addressed the Reichstag on the subject of Paragraph 175. Excerpts from his speech, as translated for Gay News in 1978:

I am informed by the best sources that the police of that city do not bring the names of men who commit offenses which Paragraph 175 makes punishable by imprisonment to the attention of the district attorney as seen as they have become aware of the fact, but rather add the names of the persons involved to the list of those who for the same reasons are already in their files. (Hear! Hear! [from the Left])

The number of these persons is so great and reaches so far into all levels of society, that if the police here scrupulously carried out their duty, the Prussian State would immediately be compelled to build two new penitentiaries just to take care of those offenses against Paragraph 175 that are committed in Berlin alone. (Commotion. Hear! Hear! )

That is not an exaggeration, Herr von Levetzow; it has to do with thousands of persons from all walks of life. But then it further raises the question of whether the provisions of Paragraph 175 should apply not only to men, but also to women who on their part commit the same offense. What is just in the case of one sex, is fair for the other. But gentlemen, I'll tell you this: if in this area the Berlin police did their duty all the way — I want to say a word about this — then there would be a scandal such as the world have never known, a scandal compared with which the Panama scandal, the Dreyfus scandal, the Lützow-Ledert and the Tausch-Normann scandals are pure child's play. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the offense punishable under this Paragraph is treated with such extraordinary laxity on the part of the police. Gentlemen, Paragraph 175 is part of the penal code, and because it is there, it must be enforced. However, if for whatever reasons this part of the criminal law cannot be enforced, or can be enforced only selectively, then the question arises whether this provision of the penal code can equitably be retained. I wish to venture that in this very session — perhaps some of the gentlemen may not yet have taken note of it — we have before us a printed petition signed by me personally, among others, and by a number of colleagues from other parties, and further by people from literary and academic circles, by jurists of the most illustrious standing, by psychologists and pathologists, by experts of the highest rank in this field. The petition, for reasons that understandably I don't wish to go into fully at this moment, advocated a revision of the penal code so as to repeal the relevant provisions of Paragraph 175.

In summary: while he declined to comment on the reasons for the WhK's creation of the petition, Bebel's argument was that the sheer numbers of 'offenders' under Paragraph 175 made it completely unenforceable.

The commotion recorded in response to his speech goes partway to showing the response his speech received, and a pastor named Schall made a more concrete response a few days later: he claimed a moral objection on Biblical grounds, as well as voicing his utter failure to comprehend how so many notable people had signed the petition. To quote: "I must admit having been profoundly shocked by these remarks of Herr Bebel — they has somehow upset me and thrown me into a deep depression."

Unfortunately, these efforts achieved nothing; Paragraph 175 remained in the penal code. Regardless, barring some backlash, it appears that Bebel's speech did not cause him to suffer politically in any notable way.

One additional tidbit from the article where I found the translation, which I found rather amusing:

One thing Bebel's colleagues found hard to believe, was his portrayal of the prevalence and extensiveness of homosexual activity. In 1907, Bebel, then elderly and ailing, recalled the incredulity some Reichstag members had expressed nine years before over his estimates as to the great numbers of homosexuals, and how he had been accused of exaggeration. In retrospect, Bebel maintained, he had not exaggerated — if anything he may have estimated too few!

---

20 years later, in 1929, a committee of the Reichstag had been formed to rewrite Germany's penal code. The proposed replacement for Paragraph 175 was a new Paragraph 296, which was effectively the same as 175 in that it criminalised male-male sexual relations; in addition, Paragraph 297 was proposed in order to make punishment even harsher for homosexuality in cases of sex work, sex under the age of 21, and sexual coercion in service or work situations. A vote taken on October 16th, 1929, voted against the inclusion of Paragraph 296, which would have effectively decriminalised homosexuality between men; however, Paragraph 297 did pass.

Paragraph 296 was successfully voted against by representatives from the SPD, the KPD (Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands, or Communist Party of Germany) and the DDP (Deutsche Demokratische Partei, or German Democratic Party). The KPD in particular were in favour of decriminalising homosexuality, largely thanks to Richard Linsert, an influential figure within the party and a prominent member of the WhK: it is notable that three votes from the KPD were the only ones against Paragraph 297. To the KPD, the inclusion of Paragraph 297 -- even at the exclusion of 296 -- was "one step forward and two steps backward".

An interesting case here is that of Wilhelm Kahl, a member of the DVP (Deutsche Volkspartei, or German People's Party), who voted to have Paragraph 175 struck from the penal code: specifically not as "a recognition of homosexuality as a morally or legally allowable act" (he made sure to make it known that he considered homosexuality to be "against nature"), but in objection to it as a "failed law". His objection was threefold. One part of his argument was in line with the WhK, that "adult people have free use of their own bodies" and that no participants were inherently hurt. Another part was more in keeping with Bebel's objection above: that the law was both impractical and ineffective. But most of all, Kahl objected to the "propaganda" that proliferated in response to the criminalisation of homosexuality, such as the many efforts made by organisations like the WhK in favour of decriminalisation. In essence, his aim was to pay lip service to their demands in order to shut them up, while simultaneously enacting harsh criminal penalties (via Paragraph 297) for the "actual dangers" of homosexuality.

This move, in a relatively conservative party like the DVP, almost jeopardised his position in the Reichstag. The conservative press lambasted him for it, and his own party were reluctant to nominate him for another term -- though they did eventually give in. However, it's notable that these consequences only occurred given his membership of one of the Reichstag's more conservative parties. In fact, the book 'Sex and the Weimar Republic: German Homosexual Emancipation and the Rise of the Nazis' suggests that Kahl's opinion here was not uncommon throughout Germany at the time: that many of the straight majority were prepared to tolerate homosexuality, just as long as it remained behind closed doors.

Regardless of the outcome of this vote, a vote in March 1930 ensured that Paragraph 296 ended up back in the reformed penal code. Following that came the rise of the Nazi party, and in the democratic crisis that followed, neither Paragraph 296 or 297 were ever passed. Versions of Paragraph 175 remained in German law until 1994.