[x]

First, we never hear from these supposedly “conservative” or “moderate” homosexuals unless it’s to do damage control to protect their agenda (which is to fully legitimize homosexuality in society).

Clearly, they aren't going to go against their own goals or what they perceive as their own interest. Isn't that true of most people? And aren't "moderates" by definition people who point out that others have gone too far?

We should NEVER accept the support of activist homosexuals because their motive is ALWAYS self-preservation of their agenda, never on principle.

He's talking about 'supposedly “conservative” or “moderate” homosexuals' who aren't necessarily "activist homosexuals." Presumably self-preservation is high on their list of concerns, but they may or may not support a broader agenda.

This doesn't seem to go beyond the obvious. If you want to have nothing to do with the gay thing -- movement, agenda, or whatever -- you might not cite homosexuals even when they agree with you. Homosexuals, even when they agree with you, aren't going to renounce or attack homosexuality. Yes. And? So what?

[fwdude]

And aren't "moderates" by definition people who point out that others have gone too far?

No. "Moderates" are people who have no principles, who strive to be half ill/half well to avoid the "extremist" appearance of optimal health.