[jwalsh07]

That is my personal view, but it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Even if Knight were correct in thinking that homosexuality is a moral choice, and that Christians and Jews have a moral obligation to oppose it, this would not alter the fact that it is inappropriate and self-defeating for philosophical conservatives to make this their political agenda. A mission to rescue homosexuals is a religious mission; it is not an appropriate political cause. Would Robert Knight like the government to investigate every American to determine whether they are homosexual or not and then compel those who are to undergo conversion therapy -- or else? This is a prescription for a totalitarian state. No conservative should want any part of it. But this is how Robert Knight sums up the political agenda of social conservatives. Those who agree with him should think again

Judging by the girth of the strawman in this last paragraph, David Horowitz has lost the debate.

To attempt to argue that there is not a "homosexual agenda" has led him down the road of perdition where he ends up accusing Christians of Naziism.

[steve-b]

No strawman there. Knight is either an advocate of totalitarian government intervention in citizens' sex lives, or he is not.

[sirchtruth]

A mission to rescue homosexuals is a religious mission; it is not an appropriate political cause.

So do abortion and drug abuse among other issues hold the same weight?

[LiberationIT]

Not Nazism, rather intolerance and political shortsightedness; and, in no few terms, not grasping the "debate" as posed in his original piece.

[ggekko]

There is a fallacy that undermines Horowitz' entire argument. The radical left element mong gays such as ActUp and other allied organizations make any compromise with gay activists impossible. The ActUp crowd wants change to body politic in whatever way is necssary to normalize the gay lifestyle. If such changes mandate that Christian leaders be put concentration camps then so be it.

The core leadership group in ActUp and the HRC are neo-facists who will not tolerate dissent. They hide this reality behind a lot of elevated rhetoric but at root they are ant-democratic elitists who cynically manipulate democratic institutions in order to advance their agenda.

The Christian leaders were correct to protest the meeting with Racicot but they used the wrong reason when doing so. The anti-democratic, almost totalitarian political goals of these organizations should been focus of the protest which should have immediately de-legitimized them as political actors.

Horowitz has a point about how to approach political problems but he overlooks the fact that ActUp and its allied organizations completely overrides anything that the "Log Cabin Republicans" might do with their Facist tactics and political program.