The aversive techniques haven’t been practiced for decades and yet you all still bring them up.

I’m afraid you’re wrong here, Madison. I believe Richard Cohen is still using a variant of these today. I think some Exodus groups do the same.

The thing that gets me is that those on my side of the discussion just want folks to be able to to pursue their own course and get the help they want whereas you all seem to feel like you know what’s best for people and want to steer them towards your viewpoint. That strikes me as drastically wrong.

Madison, “you all” does not include me. I don’t think we’re debating here about people choosing what they think is best for them. I would never attempt to dissuade anyone from reparative therapy or any of its cousins, or any other choice of therapy. I have no idea what’s best for anyone. Each individual is autonomous in their decisions.
I thought we were actually discussing the merits of NARTH, et. al., by the results. I’m not some ad agency promoting somebody’s agenda. If that’s what you’ve construed by this interchange, I think there’s been a misunderstanding.
However, Madison:

whereas you all seem to feel like you know what’s best for people and want to steer them towards your viewpoint.

are you not guilty of the same thing you’re blaming some of us for?

t is only with same sex attraction that we have given it a name and tried to make the case that it is innate and immutable.

Madison, I wonder if you can tell us when you made the ‘choice’ to be heterosexual? Was that a difficult choice to make?

Anyone who is skeptical of the “born gay” theory or expresses a preference for heterosexuality is now considered homophobic.

I’d say this is rather a hyperbolic statement, wouldn’t you, Madison? I’m a homosexual, and I don’t label people homophobic who have opinions different than mine on the etiology of homosexuality, or if they have a preference for heterosexuality.
Do I think NARTH does not have the current MSM support, or is on the prickly side of the divide on this issue? Yes, that’s true; but, not necessarily because there’s some big conspiracy going on. I do think, my opinion only which is contrary to yours, that there is very credible scientific evidence that nature plays a very significant role in the genesis of homosexuality. I think, also, that nurture plays a part; far less so, than what was commonly believed, in my opinion. As we move to a better comprehension of the facts (not beliefs), we can better sort out what’s going on, from a position of neutrality, not partiality.
I liken this somewhat to the debate on geocentrism vs. heliocentrism (which continues today in some circles). Copernicus and Galileo rocked the world with their new theory. A theory that raged for some years and was labeled heresy by the Christian world.
What’s interesting about NARTH is their movement away from the blatant statement that their therapy can ‘change’ people from gay to str8 (although they always wiggled on the term ‘change’) to their current stated position that their therapy is not directly about ‘change’, and they can’t guarantee ‘change’, and maybe through the attunement process you might ‘change’. Although they’re still fighting the battle that ‘change’ is possible, even they have become more cautious about there wording. Are they looking at their own client results, or are they being ‘pressured’ by some outside force, as you charged Mohler with on another thread, Madison?