Is "Gay the New Black?"

Below are some excerpts from an article by Voddie Baucham from about a year ago addressing the arguments comparing homosexuality to the civil rights movement. He does a great job showing why the argument that the homosexual rights movement is just a continuation of the civil rights movement doesn't work. He does this by showing the distinctions between the two.
His main arguments are:

1. Homosexuals are an unidentifiable minority because it is impossible to tell who is homosexual apart from their own self-identification as being homosexual. This is completely different from being white, black, asian, latino or even man, or woman.In these cases you can tell by looking at the person or do a genetic test.
2. Marriage cannot be redifined (you will have to read this section as there are several arguments he puts forth).
3. It is an unsustainable precedent to open up marriage to any "group" that wants it. 

The whole thing is worth reading, especially if you want to get a clear view on all the issues, but below are a few excerpts that I found insightful.

In short, it's impossible to identify who is or is not a homosexual. As a result, how do we know to whom the civil rights in question should be attributed? Should a man who isn't a homosexual (assuming we could determine such a thing) but tries to enter a same-sex union be treated the same as a woman who isn't Native American but tries to claim it to win sympathy, or casino rights, or votes?

...
It should be noted that the right to marry is one of the most frequently denied rights we have. People who are already married, 12-year-olds, and people who are too closely related are just a few categories of people routinely and/or categorically denied the right to marry. Hence, the charge that it is wrong to deny any person a "fundamental right" rings hollow. There has always been, and, by necessity, will always be discrimination in marriage laws.

...
One thing that seems to escape most people in this debate is the fact that homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry. They simply haven't had the right to redefine marriage. 

...

Perhaps the most damning aspect of the civil rights argument is logical unsustainability. If sexual orientation/identity is the basis for (1) classification as a minority group, and (2) legal grounds for the redefinition of marriage, then what's to stop the "bisexual" from fighting for the ability to marry a man and a woman simultaneously since his "orientation" is, by definition, directed toward both sexes? What about the member of NAMBLA whose orientation is toward young boys? Where do we stop, and on what basis?

...
It is very important for those of us who oppose the idea of same-sex "marriage" to do so not because we wish to preserve our version of the American Dream, but because we view marriage as a living, breathing picture of the relationship between Christ and his church (Eph. 5:22ff), and because we know that God has designed the family in a particular way.