The civil rights movement started with bright prospects: Eliminate Jim Crow, and the barriers between white and black will fade away. Of course, that didn’t happen. Lower class blacks suffer from social pathologies that everyone is anxious to distance themselves (and, more importantly, their children) from. Jim Crow was (among other things) a blunt instrument for accomplishing this. The North had more subtle ways of doing it--excluding blacks from certain neighborhoods, etc. We've gotten rid of those and condemn them as racist, but we have our own ways of doing the same thing. For instance, white people--including good-thinking liberals--are anxious to move to neighborhoods with "good schools"--which effectively means "majority white and asian". Of course, there are middle class blacks, who integrate more or less successfully with the white middle class (and also must insulate themselves from lower class blacks), but the hopes of the civil rights movement have met with hard realities: no one has a solution for the social pathologies of lower class blacks, and no one really believes (when you look at revealed preferences) the official dogma that these pathologies are primarily in the eye of the beholder.
As we all know, gays are the new blacks, and the gay rights movement is the new civil rights movement. So, the question arises: what are the realistic prospects for "gay integration"?
As with blacks, we are informed that negative impressions of gays are merely prejudice--gays and straights are the same. If they're not, it's because of straight prejudice. Remove the prejudice, give gays their rights, and they'll be just like straights (except where they're better than straights!).
There are reasons to think this argument is more plausible for gays than it has proven to be for blacks. Strictly speaking, gays have never been forcibly segregated, so we're talking more about social acceptance rather than integration. The persistent differences between whites and blacks seem to arise in large part from genetic differences that come from breeding separately for thousands of years--most prominently, the mean IQ of the two populations is different. Gays are not a distinct genetic population like this, with a broad set of differences from the rest of the population that show up as statistically significant against the noise of individual variations when whole populations are considered. It seems somewhat more plausible to say that gays are just like straights, except that they are attracted to their own sex.
On the other hand, the limitations that civil rights and feminism have met up against despite legal changes and relentless propaganda should make us skeptical of the ability of the gay rights movement to fully normalize homosexuality. Like differences between blacks and whites, and men and women, the societal disapproval of homosexuality is not some peculiar quirk of our culture, but manifests itself across many (most? all?) cultures in some form or another.
Even if there's not some direct reason for this (e.g. disapproval of homosexuality somehow directly increases genetic fitness), there are basic logical reasons why "gay" will never become a compliment--namely, sexual differentiation works.
The vast majority of men like being masculine and prefer women who are feminine. The vast majority of women like being feminine and prefer men who are masculine. As much as we might protest "Not that there's anything wrong with that!", when it comes to revealed preferences, we like sexual differentiation in our mates, our associates and our children. Maybe propaganda will be able to wear down some of the felt revulsion at androgyny (at least, among some women). It has certainly already limited public expression of that revulsion, but, again, when it comes to whom we choose to associate and mate with, women prefer clearly masculine men and men prefer clearly feminine women--and, as there are obvious evolutionary reasons for this as masculinity and femininity largely boil down to signals of biological fitness, it's unlikely that this will go away, even if the boundaries and specific cultural manifestations of masculinity and femininity are modified over time.
Sexual differentiation is too basic to the structure of society and life as most people actually prefer to live it for the public breakdown of this differentiation demanded by LGBT ideology (and now being enshrined in law) to ultimately succeed. If the law will no longer allow outright discrimination against those who violate the boundaries demanded by this differentiation, people will find other means to carry on normal life. To the extent that we have free association, we can associate with people who value similar things. When parents move to neighborhoods full of people who "value education," or when white people more generally move to whitopias like Portland to be around a "vibrant arts scene" or "sustainable lifestyle," they are, in fact, selecting to be around people like them, which--in practice--means mostly whites, and, implicitly, they are expressing preference for and approval of ways of life that are most characteristic of whites in our society. In the same way, sexually normal straight people naturally gravitate to other sexually normal straight people--both for selecting mates and for friendship, and they express preference for and approval for masculinity in men and femininity in women.
This inherently limits the social acceptability of homosexuality.
