But when I attended Love Won Out and heard Nicolosi speak, I got it straight from his mouth to my ears. “Homosexuality as pathology” was a major theme, and it was not a subject that he caveated around just “some people with issues.” He was pretty clear and and very adament with his blanket statement. He was speaking of homosexuality as a disorder and as a pathology. I cannot imagine anybody at that conference mistaking his talk for anything else.

I understand it you don’t want to take my word for it. All I can do is relay what I heard. I suppose I could also look in the handouts to see if that link is made there, although the handouts were rather skimpy. Meanwhile, NARTH’s own web site provides ample evidence to illustrate their collective thinking on this.

And yes, I would consider my sexuality a pathology of other things – your may not be. Don’t seek change – would be my advice to you.

Sure, it is “left to the individual to decide/decline/accept.” We still live in a free country. But as long as NARTH continues to advocate public policies that have as their effect making the lives of gays and lesbians as difficult as possible, and as long as NARTH’s own position is that homosexuality is a priori a pathological condition in direct contravention of the APA’s position, then we have a very serious situation that health professionals are obligated to address.

Yes, true. But from what I’ve read, I think every member of NARTH does have “the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.”