Questions mount as to the doors we will open if we allow gay rights to be defined as a Civil Rights issue, making it clear that we ought to rethink whether or not the gay rights movement is actually worthy of being treated as such.
The idea of defining gay rights as the Civil Rights issue of our time is disrespectful, offensive, and perhaps even racist towards minorities who were discriminated against and often treated brutally -- due to ethnic identities clearly defined at birth, rather than by lifestyle actions. If the gay and lesbian rights movement is a Civil Rights issue, then it is the first time in American history that a Civil Rights issue has been defined on the basis of tendencies, leading a particular group of society to perform actions and therein embrace a particular identity and lifestyle.
This opens the door for a broad range of questions in regard to other tendencies in American society that may fall under the category of Civil Rights, based on the logic applied by that of the gay rights movement. Some people have the tendency to dress casually, but are often denied jobs or even fired from a job because they refuse to show up to work wearing a suit. Others have a tendency to eat tacos and would like for every restaurant to fulfill their desires to consume tacos. However, not all restaurants are geared towards fulfilling the tendency of one to eat tacos. Does this give the right of those whose desires are not being fulfilled to refer to the restaurant owners as “bigoted Tacophobics?” Furthermore, should they sue the restaurant that refuses to cater to their desire? Perhaps they should even go to Taco Bell, make a purchase and then go sit over at Wendy’s and have a Taco-In.
Still yet, there are other groups in American society that are strictly forbidden to eat or serve others food based on their tendency. If they are caught fulfilling their tendency whether through serving food or being caught with the subject of their meat cravings frozen in their fridge, they face steep penalties. I am referring to the cat lovers. No, I don’t mean those cat lovers who keep the forkballs in their home for companionship, but rather those who love cats because they taste just like chicken. This is utterly bigoted and intolerant towards a small percentage of Americans that identify with the Taoist belief that cats are healthy because they contain the greatest amount of the vital life-giving force known as chi. I guess those handful of restaurants in my hometown that were shut down for serving "unidentified meat" should have sued and started their own Civil Rights movement, accusing those who oppressed them of “chiaphobia.”
Finally, if gay rights are granted recognition as the “Civil Rights” issue of our time, then that also opens the door for reconsidering our bigoted and intolerant laws forbidding the practice of incest. While most would say heaven forbid the thought of having erotic desires for their biological brother or sister, in the now famous words of those who stand for gay rights, “What could be more loving than two souls being connected and committed to each other?” Perhaps it’s time for those who find their biological brothers or sisters “hot” to form their own Civil Rights movement. If not approving of the homosexual lifestyle is homophobic, is it not “incestaphobic” for one to deny the right of a grown man to have a passionate monogamous sexual relationship with his fully-grown biological sister.
This is only but a mere sample of the large range of possibilities that we must consider if in fact we deem gay rights as the “Civil Rights issue” of our generation. It all equates to make it quite clear that the propagated notion of gay rights, as a "Civil Rights issue" is ridiculously illogical and should’ve never even been conceived in the first place.