Because I can’t personally know the effectivity rate of different resources for people who suffer from same-gender attraction, I can't personally vouch for any specific method or practitioner.
And though I have no personal experience with the following resources, they certainly seem worth a try:

1) I guess the most well-known group is JONAH. They deal with healing and support for same-gender attraction and are definitely worth a look. I found their testimonials quite compelling.

2) Reading his articles shows that Dr. Zev Ballen has dealt with the most harrowing traumas and is also the founder of Emuna Therapy. Additionally, he has also trained many people to be Emuna therapists. A method using genuine emuna is definitely worth a try.

3) I do know that the late Dr. William Glasser had success using his Reality Therapy techniques for this issue (although I suppose you would have to find a Reality therapist nowadays who believes that this issue even needs healing).

4) As referenced in the section on Reparative/Conversion therapy in Part I, a comprehensive list and description of various practioners, methods, and studies is detailed here.

If you're going to go through a therapist or rabbi or some other kind of advisor for this issue, it is very important that the person be sympathetic. There needs to be deep appreciation for the difficulty of this particular nisayon along with the firm belief that success is definitely possible. There is absolutely no need for the advisor to display any disgust or harshness or ridicule. There should be healthy boundaries during the counseling and absolutely no indication of exploitation of any kind.

Whether you are looking for guidance for yourself or a loved one, it's important to check out the advisor's attitude and track record before putting yourself (or your loved one) in such a vulnerable situation.

Particularly for men, this is one of the hardest nisayons to deal with. Even if you rebound or stumble in some way during the process of healing, please remember that every step you take forward is changing the world in ways you can't perceive but for which you will receive unimaginable reward.

Especially in today's world where the entire Western society is saying that this IS good, that this IS natural, that it is your RIGHT, and so on....when you stop yourself from watching, doing, or even thinking anything to do with toeva, you have done something incomprehensibly powerful.

Why?

Because in today's world, the only reason to take steps toward healing this issue is purely because Hashem said so - solely because you have chosen to what Hashem wants, putting Hashem's desire ahead of your own.

That kind of thing can sweeten even the most firmly set and harshest decree.

This means that no matter who you are and what level you are on, you can prevent a terror attack or avert a any kind of disaster just in the privacy of your own room.
(Needless to say, these are not my own opinions, but are culled from Torah sources.)

Finally, it’s important to remember that this nisayon is from Hashem and dealing with it is somehow for your benefit, painful and frustrating though it may be. Regardless of what options you choose for yourself or a loved one, it is important to maintain a constant connection with Hashem and a firm belief in His Love for you, no matter how much you stumble.

Hatzlacha Rabbah to everyone.

P.S. If you want, you can send me your name for davening here and I will be happy to daven for you.

A friend of mine who worked for Hollywood once asked me, “If you want to justify your values and behaviors and make yourself feel good and legitimate, where do you point the camera?”

“Uh....” I said.

She pointed to herself.

“Here,” she said. “You keep your camera pointed at yourself all the time.”

Since its inception, Hollywood has been the gathering place for twisted and lecherous minds. Even in the earliest black-and-white movies, you can see the promotion of values that went against the accepted American norms of that time. The twisted values were often presented with humor, which made the behavior seem harmless. In other cases, the hero with whom the audience identified and championed exhibited the offensive behavior, making it seem acceptable or even admirable.

Yet because of society’s intolerance past a certain point, Hollywood was forced to conform to a certain standard and prohibited from crossing certain lines – though it pushed that line with vigor and frequency, leading to what we have today.

Off the set, the behavior of many of the producers and writers from then until now displays a lot of disturbance and narcissism. So when we watch these people’s movies, we are watching products of their warped minds, even becoming temporarily absorbed into their sick psyches.

While the reprehensible casting couch for women has long been an open secret in Hollywood – and Broadway, for that matter – the toeva casting couch has gradually taken over and hardly anyone speaks about it. This is a large part of why toeva men (and not women) are overrepresented in the entertainment industry, both as actors and as characters.

"Monsters."
I remember the boys who became known as “the two Coreys” – Corey Haim and Corey Feldman, both Jewish child actors and close friends. After a long battle with drugs and several suicide attempts, Corey Haim eventually succumbed to overdose (though I think it’s officially reported as pneumonia), finally dying at the age of 39.

Yet even before his death, Haim publicly announced that he’d been repeatedly assaulted between the ages of 14-16 by a middle-aged Hollywood mogul.

Incensed by his friend’s needless death and the traumatic abuse that led to the initial drug use, Corey Feldman went public with the truth – and it was ugly.

The media published his story and publicized his interviews for a few days.

Then everything went silent again.

What was Corey Feldman’s message?

First of all, he stated that the biggest problem for child actors in the entertainment industry was the most traumatic kind of abuse.

He emphasized that physical relationships between men and boys were “normal” in “the industry.” Recalling one of Haim’s confidences, Feldman said, “an adult male convinced him that it was perfectly normal for older men and younger boys in the business to have....that it was what all the guys do.”

He also stated, “There's one person to blame in the death of Corey Haim. And that person happens to be a Hollywood mogul. And that person needs to be exposed, but, unfortunately, I can't be the one to do it.”

He described pools parties given by older Hollywood men who invited pre-teen boys as a way to initiate the “grooming” process. Part of the grooming process is the introduction of drugs. Obviously, a drugged victim is more compliant and later, drug addicts are less likely to have their accusations taken seriously.

Corey Haim claimed to have turned to the police before the statute of limitations on his abusers would run out, but the police did absolutely nothing.

Feldman himself was abused many, many times. In desperation, he reached out to seemingly caring men in Hollywood, only to discover that they, too, were only interested in abusing him.

"Slowly, over a period of many years, I would begin to realize that many of the people I had surrounded myself with were monsters," he says. [Emphasis mine.]
“There was a circle of older men….And they all had either their own power or connections to great power in the entertainment industry.”

He, too, turned to drugs to escape the terrible physical and psychological pain inflicted by all the abuse.

While Corey Feldman is the only one I’m quoting here, former actors and actresses, along with others who have worked in the entertainment industry, have made the same allegations, often anonymously.

We’ve all seen that the big push to proclaim toeva as “normal” originated in the entertainment industry. Needless to say, news outlets must also be part of this. Who hosts their networks? Who are their producers? From whom do they receive their studios and everything else they need to produce a news show?

Nearly all mainstream news networks blatantly push this agenda.

The push to portray same-gender couples (almost always male) as appealing and normal on TV and in the movies comes from Hollywood. Popular literature (with the major publishing houses today being owned by media corporations) and movies and TV shows often portray toeva relationships as even more stable and harmonious than straight relationships, even though anecdotal evidence and actual statistics completely contradict this.

Yet who’s behind all this?

“Monsters.”

(FYI: The German media conglomerate, Bertelsmann, became the largest publisher of Nazi propoganda by 1939 and benefited from the Jewish concentration camp labor enforced by the Nazis. It owns the following publishing companies: Random House, Doubleday, Knopf, and Crown. Recognize any of those?)

Society needs to wake up to who is running things.

It won’t wake up, but it desperately needs to.

Finally, and this is on a separate but parallel topic, I remember a friend from high school who was in therapy for the ritual abuse she’d undergone around age eight as part of a terrifying occult ceremony that involved death symbols.

The cult consisted of people who served in elite positions in society: judges, top lawyers, politicians – people who were her aunts and uncles. Her father was active in this secret cult and her mother, having also been a victim from a young age, repressed all memories and was unable to even acknowledge her own abuse or that of her daughter.

The parents divorced; I can’t remember why exactly, maybe because the wife and children weren’t needed anymore and the elitists were confident in the ability of their methods to guarantee their victims’ silence and lack of credibility. Anyway, the mother allowed her daughter to go into therapy in much the same way a parent would let her mentally ill deluded child go into therapy - meaning that her mother saw it as her daughter's delusion, and not as PTSD.

I’ll never forget my friend telling me: “judges and politicians.”

Who are the people defining “compassionate” for us?

Who are the people deciding for us what is fair and moral?

When we face situations like Hillary Clinton laughing while describing the actions of a man she willingly chose to defend, a man that Hillary clearly knew was guilty of an assault on a 12-year-old girl so brutal that the girl fell into a 10-day coma and was rendered infertile, when we look at the cover-up by the British social welfare system in Rotterham of over a thousand native British girls assaulted and exploited by Pakistani gangs, we know there is something very sinister beneath the surface. These are just the indications that come oozing out of a rapidly metastasizing wound.

The people pushing for immoral changes in society know what they are doing.
They know they hurt people, they know they hurt the most innocent and helpless members of society – and they don’t care.

They have their own agenda and that is all they care about.

And it’s very important to remember that evil people have always won support for their side by playing the victim card. Their strategy is to manipulate others into thinking that a compassionate “good” person is one who sides with their agenda.

Twisted "Compassion"
The wicked have always influenced others by manipulating the Divinely bestowed sense of compassion. Because the most compassionate heart is a Jewish one, even frum Jews can get suckered into cheering for the wrong side.

But the way to tell the difference is to look for whether the people screaming “Compassion!” are ignoring or even supporting real atrocities while demonizing minor injustices or even criminalizing genuinely moral behavior.

For example, Hillary Clinton laughed about successfully defending a man she knew was a dangerous monster and blamed his young victim for the crime and she also acts all blasé about the tragedy of Benghazi (which she allowed to happen). Yet she showed serious resentment at what she clearly perceived as the gross unfairness of being asked questions first (“I keep getting the first question on aaaaall of these issues....”) whenever she debated Obama, emphasizing this inequality several times.

So...in Hillary World, brutality against a young girl is a joke (and the girl’s fault anyway), the torturous deaths of American serviceman is ho-hum – but being forced to consistently go first in a presidential debate is a notable injustice?

Historical Examples of Twisted "Compassion"
Ancient Egyptians
The ancient Egyptians insisted on enslaving an innocent and highly moral population (us), which led to horrific atrocities against that helpless population. Egyptian society become convinced that a rapidly multiplying Jewish population was worse than cementing live babies into a wall, and that “good” Egyptians were supposed to believe that murdering babies in such a horrific manner was just and good while killing a sheep was an unthinkable taboo.

Many Pre-WWII European Christians
Christian clergy repeatedly convinced their followers that terrible atrocities against the Jews were very good and the responsibility of “good” Christians who truly cared about their society and Afterlife. These clergymen justified these atrocities by demonizing a court sentence handed out against their founder by a small group of Jews over 2000 years ago. The rampant stealing, cheating, domestic violence, and alcoholism among the European Christian populations along with the repulsive corruption of the Church were not considered nearly as bad.

(And by the way, knowing what we know now about many Catholic priests, has anyone else wondered why, in so many blood libels against the Jews, the victims were often young boys “discovered” by a priest in the Church basement? Could those priests have been covering up their own crimes before their victims could have the chance to expose them?)

Communists
The fact that some people had money and abused their power meant that atrocities and genocide could be used against millions of people, rich or poor. “Good” people were supposed to betray even their own parents and torture and kill people for “crimes” like owning the picture of a Capitalist leader or not supporting Communism. Yet Communism was considered the compassionate ideology.

Nazis
Trees and dogs were highly valued. Environmentally unsound practices and the abuse of animals was considered very wrong while any “good” German understood that exterminating Jews and other undesirables was of great benefit to society. Compassionate Germans were supposed to support the Aryan “race” while annihilating everyone else.

Muslims
Murdering 12-year-old girls who’ve been brutally violated or have rejected a shidduch is fine, even admired, depending on the community. Domestic violence, the oppression and exploitation of fellow Muslims (especially if they’re poor), along with the Koran-mandated persecution and/or extortion of non-Muslims are also acceptable, even esteemed. In many Muslim countries, female genital mutilation is a must. Child brides in Muslim countries sometimes die of damage to their internal organs inflicted on their wedding night.

However, profiling Muslims at the airport or expecting a Muslim taxi driver to service a pork-carrying patron are considered serious human rights violations.

Right now, Western society imposes a straight-jacket definition of what comprises a compassionate person. Here are just two examples:

Abortion
Abortion is considered an act of compassion; anyone who disagrees is a misogynist (or a self-hating brainwashed woman). However, the thousands of women who deeply regret their abortions, the huge numbers of women who become depressed or suffer fertility problems or even commit suicide after an abortion, the unborn babies who die or are tortured to death, the fact that abortion clinics cover up the abortion-caused maternal deaths and sell baby parts, the women who say: “I was able to heal from the assault that led to the conception, but not from the abortion that ended that conception,” the appalling lies pro-abortionists have used in order to pass unconscionable laws and change society’s attitudes – these are almost completely ignored or denied within society at large. The act of abortion is deemed acceptable – even compassionate; presenting alternatives to abortion is considered a severe oppression (a "war on women") that must be fought tooth and nail.

(Randy Alcorn's book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments is an excellent resource for addressing this issue.)

Even vegans, who won't eat an unfertilized chicken egg or wear leather shoes, are often pro-abortion when it comes to human babies. It bothers many people that chickens live in overcrowded crates, but it doesn't interest them nearly as much that Planned Parenthood harvests organs from live babies and all the other tragic issues involved in abortion.

[I also want to point out that the abortion industry’s craving for money and the lengths they are willing to go to amass it are highly reminiscent of the materialistic culture featured in Rebbe Nachman’s story, The Master of Prayer/Baal Tefillah, in which wealthy people were considered gods and poor people were literally sacrificed to these "gods" because poor people were considered “not human.”]

Toeva
Toeva is considered a right and an inherently natural state, and the support of toeva rights deemed the compassionate response. The abhorrent abuse of young boys is swept under the carpet. Hollywood elites can do what they want because, after all, nothing should come between an American and his or her right to wallow in mindless entertainment. However, helping people heal from their inappropriate attraction (and healing from the events that often led to the development of this attraction), or being willing to explore the overwhelming correlation of the paternal relationship or severe child abuse to same-gender attraction, is proclaimed “phobic” and hateful – particularly by those very elites who themselves indulge in these terrible abuses.

I guess I don’t need to say more.

Perhaps it’s best to end with the well-know Midrash:
“Whoever is compassionate to the cruel will end up being cruel to the compassionate.”

This post is NOT about anyone being inherently bad (except for maybe some of the people mentioned in Part II).
I do NOT see any basis for believing that people attracted to their own gender are innately bad, anymore than any of us suffering from any other forbidden inclination we might have.
This is only about how indulging in a clear and major Torah prohibition that is totally forbidden for every human being across the board can warp a person and why it is so bad that legalizing davka this is one of the transgressions that creates a decree of destruction for that society.
__________________________________________

"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"
 – a sign at a 1977 pro-family rally in Houston, Texas.

Well, let’s start off by clarifying the contrasting opinions:

• Torah-observant people say that even if you are born with an attraction to the same gender, you cannot act on it because the Torah completely forbids this, especially for men. And this prohibition applies to both Jews and non-Jews.

• Liberals say that people can’t help how they feel ("Just like 10% of all people are innately left-handed, 10% are innately attracted to their own gender!") and that same-gender relationships don’t really hurt anyone anyway, and that everyone has a right to "love" and also to marry ("marriage" implies "to one person for the rest of your life") your one, true "love."
  

(By the way, the 10% claim was never true; surveys taken in Canada, USA, and Australia show it to be under 3.5%.)

I’d just like to show how every Liberal justification of same-gender intimacy is wrong.
And in Part II, I’m going to describe the very sick, evil agenda behind all the “toeva rights” hype.
Part III will briefly discuss healing.

“I was Born This Way!”
Actually, you probably weren’t. Maximum, you may have been born with a latent tendency toward toeva. But something triggered you to pursue physical relationships within your own gender.

Okay, first of all, I’m going to slant this article. Male toeva will receive more attention than female toeva. This is partly because the Torah considers male toeva much more severe, partly because most of the attention is focused on male toeva, both in the news circuit and the entertainment industry (more on why in Part II), and partly because there is more information available about men.

The Gentlemen’s Side
If you talk to toeva men, read literature written by them, and peruse their statistics, you will see that a great many of them have been seriously abused as children or teenagers. Studies report between 55.1% to 75% have been abused. 

Of course, people like to point out how “that can’t be true because not all boys who were abused in that way grow up to be attracted to their own gender.” In particular, men who are firmly attracted to women find the idea of being “tipped” into toeva especially mind-boggling.

The thing is, we all have innate tendencies toward different attributes – including good ones. Different experiences in life can “tip” us in the direction of that latent tendency. Without that “tipping” experience, that tendency will never find expression. (A positive example of this is a person who opens up a chessed organization after facing a severe deprivation. Without coming face to face with that deprivation, he or she would not have established an organization to deal with that very need.)

Furthermore, different people react to abuse in different ways. In girls, for example, such abuse can ignite the inclination for indiscriminate relationships in one girl while inducing frigidity in another. Physical abuse can either habituate the victim to become violent himself or it can inspire visceral repugnance against all violence.
And so on.

Personal Stories
When I was in college, a young man whose parents had divorced when he was a child confided that he felt confused about his orientation. He felt attracted to both genders. In the course of our discussion, he recalled an incident perpetuated against him by a pre-teen neighbor in the hallway in front of his apartment before he could unlock the door to let himself in. (He was one of the “latch-key kids” of the Eighties.) Without realizing it, he himself made the correlation between that traumatic incident and his present orientation-confusion. We discussed how maybe his attraction toward men wasn’t his natural inclination as the surrounding society kept insisting, and that maybe he should just focus on girls, and not have anything to do with boys. Fortunately, Hashem had already led me to becoming frum, so I realized what the moral choice was in this situation. I also expressed my strong feeling that part of his confusion was because society kept telling him that his attractions were normal, even though he clearly wasn’t comfortable being attracted to men. Without the “Anything Goes!” attitude around him, he might have just come to the right conclusion and feelings on his own. I gently expressed my conviction that his innate attraction was probably toward girls and that he should just focus on them. His relief and happiness toward the end of the conversation were obvious.

Another college friend, a leading activist for toeva rights, admitted that he felt he might have been abused as a child, but that he couldn’t really remember. He also said that most of the guys he knew who were into toeva had been intimately abused as children – but he immediately denied any bearing that should have on a person’s “right” to a same-gender orientation.

Later, I came to realize that a boy’s relationship with his father has a huge impact on a boy’s orientation, as described here. And in this incredible article, "David" describes his need as a young child for physical contact with men, which stemmed from what he lacked in the relationship with his father. Note how he was "different" even at a very young age, expressed by the way he threw himself at the muscular young man to the point that his behavior made everyone else very uncomfortable. Also, notice his relationships with older men in that phase and his hindsight into that.

A father who shows his son a lot of genuine affection, including physical affection, can have a powerful positive impact on his son’s orientation. Again, it seems no coincidence that so many men attracted to other men have poor (or not as close as they crave) relationships with their fathers, as mentioned here.

In fact, I once knew a very sweet man who was the son of a Christian pastor. His father was a stern, distant man who believed in “spare the wooden paddle and spoil the child.” Before settling into a quiet, liberal, toeva life, this young man had joined the priesthood. After all, he wasn’t attracted to women and toeva was forbidden and he was a sincere, idealistic type, so... (“You wouldn’t believe what goes on there!” he said. “Let’s just say that a lot of those guys have the same issues I did.”)

Then he joined a radical right-wing militia in the South. (“You wouldn’t believe what these people are planning!”) Obviously, he was looking for a male connection that was not necessarily physical, although that is how he ended up expressing it.

In another case I learned of, the father instinctively didn’t bond with one of his sons, while the mother instinctively felt a great deal of affection for that same child. As the child grew, the father admitted that he even felt a bit repelled by this son.

Other family members noticed and appealed to the father to invest more in the relationship, even quoting Rav Dessler about how giving creates love, but the father just didn’t feel like it. Then the boy started seeking out male physical affection.

For example, he would slip his hand into his uncle’s hand, pretending it had happened by accident. At cheder, he would stand next to his rebbi until the rebbi finally realized the boy was waiting for a hug. And so on. After finally convincing the father that the son was innocently heading down a dangerous road, the father started hugging him and holding him in his lap.

At first, the father was uncomfortable and stiff about it, but Rav Dessler was right, and eventually it became more natural and feelings of genuine warmth and affection developed within the father. Not long after, the boy completely stopped seeking out physical affection from other men.

(It’s important to emphasize that the boy sought out hugs and touch from other men – and not boys and not females – despite the fact that he had always received plenty of physical and emotional affection from his mother; yet he still craved affection from a man.)

And while I can’t prove it, I can’t help thinking that the rising number of toeva among males has been increasing along with the rise of single mothers (meaning mothers who were never married and in most cases, do not have their children’s father(s) consistently involved in the children’s lives).
Again, not all toeva men lack a relationship with their father and not all boys who yearn for paternal connection will end up attracted to men.
But the correlation is impossible to ignore.

Far behind, there is the old psychology theory that a domineering mother and a passive father can produce this orientation in a boy. Basically, women seem too “scary” to get close to. In my experience, this is rarely the reason, but I’ve still observed this dynamic.

And a final point is this: Men have an innate tendency toward (how shall I put this?) idealizing physical aspects of a person or idealizing objects they associate with these physical aspects. This same tendency rarely occurs in women. Straight men express this through attraction toward certain physical aspects of a woman (or objects associated with) and in emotionally healthy men, this idealization is relatively normal and harmless, and varies from man to man. A man married to a woman who doesn't fulfill his particular idealization is still perfectly capable of intimacy with her. In less emotionally healthy men, this idealization warps into objectification and even obsession.

Men attracted to their own gender usually seem perfectly capable of a relationship with a woman, and may have even had many female partners and long-term relationships with women. But they hold a strong preference for their own gender, which further indicates that their same-gender-attraction is not some innate black-and-white issue, but normal male idealization that has become warped.

The Ladies’ Side
With females, things get a lot simpler because many women are so open about this.

In high school, a girl was telling me about how tenth grade had been a huge experience in self-discovery. She explained that the group she hung out with comprised a lot of people attracted to their own gender. “So I thought I was that way, too,” she whispered. “So I started going out with girls. But then I met this guy....” And she realized she wasn’t like her friends after all. And she was really happy about it, too.

Another woman, who had been badly betrayed by significant men in her life, decided that it was “Ladies Only” from now on. Eventually, she couldn’t deny her attraction to men, so she ultimately ended up going in the right direction.

And I remember the girl who stood up in the middle of class in college to speak passionately about her right to be romantically involved with her own gender and the pain of discrimination against people “like her.”

At one point, she blurted out a particularly horrific violation she suffered while on a date with a guy. It happened before she “came out,” but she insisted “that has NOTHING to do with the way I feel now!” I didn’t believe it and as I looked around, I saw the same disbelief on everyone else’s faces, but none of us were callous enough to challenge her.

With people in the know, the following situation is so common that it has even become a bit of a joke:

The sister/cousin/aunt who always had a girlfriend hits her thirties, realizes that biological clock is ticking away, and suddenly ups and marries a man and has a kid.
Born this way, eh?

Women have said things like, “It was so popular and acceptable at my college that if I hadn’t come to this BT sem, I would’ve tried it out!” Or, “Now that I’m frum and married, I really wish I hadn’t had all those experiences with women.”

Finally, some people theorize that we all have the ability to be attracted to either gender and our job is just to make sure it’s the halachically appropriate one.

I could go on and on with anecdotes and stuff toeva people chronicle about themselves, but this is enough for now.

“But I’VE Felt ‘Different’ Ever Since I was Very Young. That Means It IS Inborn – and Therefore, Natural – and Therefore, Permissible!”
No, that’s not what it means.

First of all, it is entirely possible that when Hashem decided that a person must go through the admittedly arduous nisayon of being attracted to one’s own gender, He caused the person to, indeed, be born "this way" for that is that person’s Divinely decreed lifetime challenge. (We all have at least one.)

Secondly, if a boy, for example, is not getting what he needed from his father (as described above), then he certainly can feel ‘different’ from the time he was very young.

Reparative/Conversion Therapy
There are different kinds of therapists and organizations offering reparative/conversion therapy for people attracted to their own gender. There are different methods of reparative/conversion therapy and each person needs to find the method that works best for him or her.

No, it doesn't always work, but it has worked for many people, further crushing the notion that the attraction to one's own gender is "inborn" or "genetic" or that there is no way to change.

Organizations that support toeva and the mainstream media hate the idea of reparative/conversion therapy because it defeats their aims (see Part II). Individuals caught up in same-gender attraction often also feel a visceral opposition to reparative/conversion therapy because they are caught up in their obsession, so to speak. (It's sort of like taking the needle out of the hand of a drug addict who is about to shoot up. You will make him or her very angry.)

So these groups and individuals either suppress the information or they launch a full-force attack against anyone promoting therapy. One of their claims is that the general success rate isn't high, and that some people seem to undergo further damage as a result of reparative therapy.

However, like everything else, the success rate depends on the type of method used and on the ratzon of the client.

For example, Alcoholics Anonymous actually has a low success rate (it only helps between 10%-40% of alcoholics who try it, depending on which study you read), but that doesn't stop people from trying it out or recommending it to others. The alcoholics not helped by AA do not cancel out the ones who are helped by AA. Not surprisingly, the alcoholics most helped by AA were those with the strongest desire to stop drinking - again, ratzon.

Interestingly, the same people who will automatically recommend AA to alcoholics despite its low rate of success oppose reparative/conversion therapy on the claim that its low rate of success means that it doesn't really work or can even be harmful.
It's hard to judge the success of reparative/conversion therapy because its success depends on the factors mentioned above.

For example, much of reparative/conversion therapy is backed by Christians. And while many people are helped, a big part of their therapy is belief in and prayer directed at a long-dead man. Needless to say, such a belief is not conducive to good mental and spiritual health. On the flip side, treating people from a purely psychological angle (i.e. an atheistic viewpoint) also cannot facilitate full healing, especially since so many of the originators of psychological theories were very messed-up themselves.

Furthermore, some methods are just ineffective or even abusive, such as those that involve hormone injections, surgery, tawdry images of the opposite gender, or electric shock.

In addition, opposers to conversion therapy point out that most studies which reveal improvement include a large percentage of men who weren't exclusively involved with men, but with women, too. However, this argument is a bit disingenuous because nearly all men who prefer men can be and have been with women.

So the questions seems to be how much does the client want to change and how is his (or her) orientation defined? And what kind of methods are used in therapy? What is the attitude of the therapist? If you don't have the right combination of factors, the chance of failure will be pretty high.

Therefore, while the general success rate isn't high, some individual therapists or organizations claim a very high success rate, like Dr. Josef Nicolosi, who claims a 60% success rate and emphasizes that "Uncompromising honesty with oneself is a necessary requirement to treatment success."

A 1970 study by L. Hatterer involving 143 clients showed that 49 clients were considered as having made a complete adjustment, with 18 clients labeled as "partially recovered." But as noted, personal motivation made a huge difference. Of the clients who demonstrated no motivation to change, only 4.6% clients did change (which is actually pretty good considering that they wanted to stay as they were). But among those who were highly motivated to change, 24% reported a "straight" orientation after counseling. 

A 1979 study by C. Socarides reported that 20 of 45 (44%) men in therapy for same-gender attraction from 1966-1977 achieved what they considered to be a change to a "straight" orientation.

In a 1994 survey by H. Macintosh, 285 psychoanalysts who analyzed 1,215 psychoanalytic clients attracted to their own gender (824 male; 391 female) show that 23% of their clients changed to a "straight" orientation. In addition, the analysts claimed that 84% of their clients reported significant benefits from analysis.

Finally, a 1980 study by L. Birk, using a combination of behavioral group and individual counseling with 14 men, claimed a 100% success rate for men exclusively attracted to other men with the intent to change. Of those 14 clients, 10 of the 14 were satisfactorily married to women at follow-up. Even more interesting, Birk was particular to include in this group only men who had been intimate exclusively with other men, and never women.

In comparison, Birk treated another group of 15 men who expressed no interest in changing prior to treatment. Yet 4 out 15 still reported a shift to a "straight" orientation.
For further details about the above studies, references, and much more information about the results of different therapies and methods, see here.

It seems that the opposition to reparation therapy isn't because it can't work, but because it can. And that defeats the agenda of its opposers.

"What Happens behind My Closed Door is MY Business!"
Would it be that it were always only behind your closed door....ahem.

Lots of things happen behind closed doors and in bedrooms that are very much the business of society and the law: drug use, child abuse, domestic violence, assault, kidnapping, bomb-making, computer hacking, murder, suicide, and so on.

Privacy is no justification.

"We’re Not Hurting Anyone!"
Well, except for spreading an incurable fatal disease, of course....

In L.A., for example, 1 out of every 10 males involved with other males is HIV-positive (Los Angeles Times, Feb. 17, 2001).

Both men and women involved in physical relationships with their own gender show a much higher incidence of drug use, alcoholism, violence, diseases (both fatal and not), mental health issues, and crimes against children as described with documented sources here and here and here - and that's just for start.

And except for confusing – and even pressuring – people with normal attractions and encouraging them into same-gender relationships that they later regret (as described above and throughout the rest of this post).

But there’s more.

Suicide
A frum boy attracted to other boys ended up going off the derech and sinking into a life of drugs, night clubs, and guys. His father had died when he was very young. At one point, he confided in a family member and the family member’s friend, both of whom were also off the derech.

They did the “right” thing according to secular Liberal society and accompanied the boy to movies and gatherings that discussed toeva rights, where everyone did everything they could to convince the boy that his feelings and actions were normal. The boy was pressured to tell his mother, a frum lady who had no background or resources for dealing with such a situation.

No one encouraging the boy to “come out” seemed to consider the importance of providing the mother with proper support or preparation - if not for her sake, then at least for the boy's well-being.

No one told the boy he had other options.

No one tried to find organizations that help these young men from a frum perspective.

No one cared that they were sentencing the boy to a life of random and rampant indulgence with no marriage and no children.

Believing the promises that telling his mother would bring him feelings of validation and liberation, he finally told her. He asked her if she still loved him and she replied that of course she did.

But she was shocked and understandably had no idea how to deal with such a situation.

So she turned to the person she always leaned on in difficult times: her older brother.

Her older brother was traditional (so he thought toeva was disgusting), but not actually religious (so he didn’t think to ask a rav, search out a frum organization or a frum therapist who deals with this issue). He took the boy aside and berated him for his orientation and for revealing it to his mother. Mortified, the boy ran off and then overdosed. After overdosing, he tried to reverse the process, but it was too late.

At fourteen, he was dead.

A year later, his family member also committed suicide.

(While I wasn’t told the reason for the second suicide, it’s not hard to draw a correlation; he may have easily felt responsible for the younger boy’s death.)

Okay, so this might be more of a case of Death by Self-Serving Liberals, but the fact is that the toeva supporters at these gatherings thought it was most important for people to be open about their orientation.

The family member and the friend didn’t get this idea alone. The concept of “coming out of the closet” was pushed without any regard for the boy’s vulnerability or personal situation. I can’t see that any of the people involved in pressuring the boy (except for maybe the family member) cared about the boy personally; it seems they only cared about their agenda.

If these people are so supportive and the lifestyle so natural and so great, then why did this boy feel that suicide was his only option?

They obviously did not care about the effect pushing their agenda would have on a young, vulnerable, and sensitive boy.

This is unconscionable.

Unrestrained Activity
Furthermore, the permissive activity of toeva men is unbelievable.

In a 1997 study, Paul Van de Ven survey of revealed that they averaged 100-500 partners over a lifetime, with 10%-15% averaging 1000 partners.

Non-monogamous straight men and women rarely reach the sheer numbers that your average toeva man does.

And that toeva activist I mentioned earlier? He said that he’d had 70+ partners by the time he was nineteen. “At least fifty of them were in this amazing weekend we had with our organization in southern Florida,” he grinned. “I sure hope my face doesn’t show in the pictures! Yeah, someone was filming the whole time. But I don’t care....”

(That was in 1991, long before selfies, pocket-sized digital cameras, and camera-inclusive cell phones became the norm, by the way.)

The male flight attendant allegedly traced to having initially spread AIDS throughout the Western world was said to have had over 2000 partners by the time he died.

In a survey taken in the college I attended, the students who claimed to have had 50+ partners were all toeva males – not straight males and not females of either orientation.

If you listen to almost any toeva male speak about his relationships, you’ll see that this is true.

Despite the claims that this is attraction is totally normal and should just be considered an alternative lifestyle, there is obviously something very wrong with a person who is so unbridled.

They need healing, not approbation.

Furthermore, just like how guys without Torah principles can be very interested in seducing girls, toeva guys are the same with other guys.

In fact, I was told how a group of teenage boys involved in toeva from frum families would befriend a boy, then show him certain movies. Once that door was opened, they then insisted he try out what was in the movie. The boy got sucked in. And that’s how they built their group.

Historically, toeva males focused on seducing pre-teen and teenage boys, and this still holds true in many cases today.

Influencing the Orientation of Their Own Children
Furthermore, there is evidence that same-gender couples are much more likely to produce children who identify with toeva.

Obviously, genetics cannot play a very big part in this, although there are medical ways for a woman to have a child that is genetically hers without an actual partner. But with toeva couples insisting that they can be excellent adoptive or foster parents, it pays to look at the statistics regarding the effect their toeva has on the children they raise.

Walter Schumm, a professor of family studies at Kansas State University has been conducting the most exhaustive study to date on the impact of toeva couples on their children. Interestingly, he was only trying to find out the truth and was not biased either way. During a 2008 Florida trial trying to ban toeva parents from adopting, he even stated that such people “can be good parents.”

Please note that he restricted his study to people in their twenties and older – people you assume have figured out their orientation and aren’t confused by experimentation and searching for identity so common today among teenagers.

58% of children raised by two female parents identified themselves as being attracted to their own gender.

33% of children raised by two male parents identified themselves as attracted to their own gender.

5-10% children raised by two straight parents identified themselves as attracted to their own gender.

Noting the large discrepancy between children raised by two women as opposed to children raised by two men, Schumm explained that because most such men have at some point been in a relationship with a woman, they were more understanding as to why their sons would date women.

In contrast, two women raising a girl would encourage her to “try out women” if they saw their daughter distressed over a relationship with a man. Schumm explains that the material he studied shows that some such women “have a hatred of men that’s intense.”
(More statistics are available here.)

This does not even begin to touch on the very real spiritual damage caused by toeva actions, including on the individual and on the society. Jewish sources expound on the profound damage and severe judgment these actions (and especially the legalization of these actions) have on society and on the world.

"We Have a Right to Get Married!"
Well, actually, that’s not true. But what is marriage?

Marriage is defined as a lifelong monogamous commitment between a man and a woman.

Not between a man and a man.

Not between a woman and a woman.

Furthermore, statistics show that a lifelong commitment between two men is a joke. When Conservatives discuss this issue, they focus on the fact that by definition, marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Liberals don’t buy this and believe the definition should be redefined. But among toeva men, long-term commitment and monogamy almost don’t exist.

In a 2003/2004 online census involving 7862 toeva men, only 15% described their current relationship as lasting 12 years or longer, with only 5% making it to twenty years. The largest chunk (31%) stay together for 1-3 years – but usually not monogamously.

95% can’t even stay together for twenty years.

And if you yourself have been married twenty years or longer, you know that it’s not so hard to make it to your twentieth anniversary.

But how many report that they maintain fidelity in their current relationship?
4.5%

In contrast, men married to women report a fidelity rate of 75.5%.

And married women report a fidelity rate of 85.5%.

Okay, so we are supposed to campaign for same-gender marriage as if it’s the Second Civil Rights Movement on behalf of a people of whom 95% cannot remain together for twenty years (let alone “till death do we part”) and 95.5% cannot remain faithful to one partner for even a year?

Now let’s compare domestic violence statistics:
0.05% married men report physical violence in their marriage
0.26% married women report physical violence
11.4% women with women report physical violence
15.4% men with men report physical violence
No comment.

Sweet-Talking the Gullible Ladies
So why is there such a huge push to legitimatize toeva marriage specifically?

And why do you sometimes hear toeva men talking about looking for “love” when most people would say that the rampant infidelity and the short timespan inherent in toeva relationships cannot possibly indicate real love?

Well, many of the main proponents for toeva marriage are females.

Many actresses and other female celebrities speak out in strong support of these unions.

Female authors are more likely to include toeva characters – especially male characters, for some reason – and to portray them in a way that women stereotypically find appealing (as loving, supportive, committed partners). In fact, I recently noticed a newly published male toeva romance – written by a woman.

The book Sefer HaZohar – Chok L’Yisrael im Peirush Hasulam, notes that the Nachash (the Snake of Gan Eden notoriety) seduced Chava by portraying itself as feminine. I still don’t understand from the text how the Nachash did that, but I can’t deny the truth of the idea.

Since time immemorial, the facade of female traits has been used to entrap women. Even today in places like India, for example, those seeking to exploit innocent young girls send a middle-aged woman to remote villages, promising the parents that the daughters will be employed as house cleaners and maids in wealthy homes, and maintain their virtue and honor. Then the woman hands them over to the behind-the-scenes exploiter who forces the girls to work until they show symptoms of AIDS and are sent home to die.

And since time immemorial, when men have wanted to seduce women, they present themselves as having a stereotypically feminine attitude toward the relationship, talking about love, love, love, and being together forever, and other things that appeal to the female personality.

And so with the current toeva movement, they use proclamations of love and marriage as a way to seduce women into supporting the movement.

"They Only Behave Deviantly because Society Treats Them like Deviants!"
While many people know that adult male Greek elites went through a 3-century phase in which they took for themselves very young male “proteges,” many aren’t aware that there is a present-day culture in which toeva has been not only the norm, but the ideal. And that is the Sambia tribe in Papua New Guinea.

I can’t even give a vague description of the tribal customs and norms because they are so repulsive. But they are definitely deviant even according to the most Liberal, open-minded members of Western society. By any standards, the traditional Sambian customs and rituals are extremely abusive and sick.

Furthermore, males who show a strong preference for females are made fun of by fellow tribesmen. The Sambians are also extremely violent, which they express through being at constant war with neighboring hamlets, utilizing their toeva rituals to maintain this aggression, believing that these abhorrent rituals make them fierce warriors.

Needless to say, it is extremely disturbing to realize that Greek elites and the Sambians had no compunctions about compelling young boys into acts that the boys would find degrading, repulsive, and painful (at least initially).

Women are considered dirty and dangerous by the Sambians, despite the necessity of eventually needing a woman for procreation and child-rearing.

In Greek society, too, women were considered by these toeva-loving elites as being inferior to men and were treated accordingly. So it seems that toeva people do not need to be discriminated against in order to behave in a manner that degrades and discriminates against other human beings.

As shown above, the expression of same-gender attraction usually results from profound psychological damage, but let’s never lose sight of the fact that healing is always possible, no matter how low one has sunk.

Despite everything shown in this post, Hashem is still infinitely bigger than all that.

A Couple of "Objective" Sources
Finally, for the sake of objectivity, I want to direct you to a couple general studies from respected sources, like this study from Harvard and this study from The National Center of Biotechnology Information.

Notice how they reveal telling statistics (like how men attracted to males, who represent less than 3% of the population, commit between 9-40% of the most reprehensible crimes against children), then go on to say that this doesn't mean that such men are more likely to commit these crimes.

(It is true that many males attracted to other males would never dream of hurting a child, but that doesn't refute the higher incidence of the ones who do.)

It seems that these "objective" academics must toe the line of the Liberal agenda even as they present the cold, hard numbers that clearly contradict their politically correct declarations.

Part II: What's Behind the Big Push for Adam and Steve?

 I was looking at a Holocaust exhibit of Nazi propaganda ads. Amid all the nauseating caricatures, one heart-wrenching poster caught my eye.
It featured an older chassidic man with two teenage girls nearby. They were standing on a hill, lugging heavy buckets. Their backs bent and bodies starved, the chassid’s face was pinched and dark with raw misery.

How could this possibly be propaganda for the Nazis? The people were so obviously suffering. Looking at the poster, my heart felt broken, not hardened or gleeful.

Then I read the translation: See how the parasites of our country get what they deserve!

Or something like that.

I was shocked.

Did people really look at this photograph of heart-wrenching suffering and feel gratified?

Apparently so.