I find a number of these arguments interesting.
I find it interesting that some like to talk about a gay agenda, when the only agenda they seem to have is equality. I'm sure a lot of white people spoke similarly about the black agenda a century ago. At that time, after significant argument I'm sure, the BSA moved forward as an integrated organization. That proved to be the right thing to do, and represents the best of Scouting's tradition.
I find it interesting that the "immorality" of homosexuals is cited as a reason for exclusion, but a similar standard is not imposed for remarried divorcees. In the gospels, one of these groups is mentioned on more than one occasion, the other not at all. This is a contradiction that might make some uncomfortable, but it exists nonetheless.
I find it interesting that those would condemn homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice" probably can't pinpoint when they chose to be heterosexual because they've "always known." Think that logic through.
I find it interesting that some are more concerned with those who are "openly gay" than they are with those who hide it. Frankly, I would find the former to be more trustworthy and brave. After all, those who admit to being gay expose themselves to discrimination and, in some cases, violence.
I'm straight, and I've always known it. I know that many things are considered immoral, and that in moments of weakness I have been guilty of a few, but I always strive to do better and to remove the plank from my own eye first. I don't easily dismiss the efforts of a minority to attain equality as an "agenda," but I do tend to dismiss those who resort to such intellectually lazy language to diminish a dissenting point of view in the absence of factual support.