He actually had a couple of inconsistencies himself. Int he first few minutes of the video, Richard points out some of the studies inconsistencies, such as "Gays in the Military." He shows two clips, one where the study writer Spriggs says he does not believe homosexuals should be in the armed forces, then another where Spriggs says he would prefer deporting of homosexuals over making more homosexuals US citizens. Richard then says this is an inconsistency, reasoning that if he wanted to deport homosexuals, wouldn't he endorse the military - which he says does the same thing - possibly killing them in the process as a "bonus?"
That's not very solid reasoning, IMHO. Richard neglects to point out that Spriggs was choosing between "less" or "more" gays with no third option; he was NOT necessarily saying we SHOULD deport them, just that if given a "YES or NO" choice, he'd pick yes. Also, I highly doubt he would ignore his belief that homosexuals would compromise the effectiveness of the armed forces in order to suggest indirectly murdering them via war. He's still a person, with morals, ethics, and compassion, regardless of his beliefs.
There was another misjudgment by Richard, where Spriggs espouses his belief int he study that homosexuals are not BORN gay, but are instead tricked into thinking that they are through childhood "environmental factors." Richard then shows a clip where Spriggs says "People do not choose to have same sex attraction..."
Once again, unsound reasoning by Richard. Even though "homosexuality-encouraging environmental factors" do not affect children by their own choice, Richard reasons that Spriggs is contradicting himself. He thinks that Spriggs is talking about the same concept; by Richard's reasoning, kids apparently choose what environment they are born into and grow up in, which is obviously fallacious.
NOTE that I do not support Spriggs, and I think he's dead wrong. I just wanted to point out that Richard's "objective, fair assessment" isn't as pure as he seems to think it is.