Yes. The APA is the American Psychological Association in this case. It has its full name in the link you didn't click if you weren't aware of that.
Funny, because that APA long ago altered its historic position (one it had held since, I believe, the 80s). In any case, this will not do you much good. Psychology contains a number of interesting theories, perspectives, and concepts, but its a philosophical and ideological mess, comprising many hundreds of modalities and theoretical approaches, running the gamut from the interesting and intriguing to the utterly vacuous (and brazenly PC).
What either APA has to say about the origins of homosexuality, given the fundamental nature of such "social science" and its vast variability and plasticine nature, philosophically over time, should probably not be bolted to tightly to our cultural floor.
Yeah, that's a thing. I like that a person pontificating on a psychological subject is scoffing at an entire subfield of psychology that is required as part of a standard undergrad degree. Here's a hint: the standard definition of a personality is enduring patterns of behavior and cognition. Think that might be related to sexual orientation?
Stop talking to yourself, Delusion. That's an indication of psychopathology. What did I scoff at? How? Are you even paying attention, or are you, as usual, in your own world tilting at your own windmills?
So, you're saying that there is overwhelming support in favor of reparative therapy, which necessarily would be psychological evidence,
I'm saying there is clear evidence for its usefulness with a specific subgroup of homosexuals who seriously desire such reorientation.
but then dismiss the conclusions of the preeminent organization on psychological research in the world?
Argument from authority (just like AGW, isn't it?) You miss the point entirely, which is that there is no consensus, agreement, or broad understanding within psychology per say as to virtually anything. Take you pick, Delusion: Freudian, Neo-Fruedian, Third Wave, Client Centered, Reality Therapy, Rational-Emotive, Family Systems, Cognitive, Congitive-Behavioral, Ericksonian, Transactional Analysis, Primal, Rebirthing etc., etc. (at last count, there were some 250 various theoretical perspectives/therapeutic modalities in the field of psychology, and that was some 25 years ago (see Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change, Third Edition, by Sol L. Garfield and Allen Bergen).
All of a sudden you're skeptical of the name synonymous with research on psychology, including therapeutic interventions?
I've been skeptical of psychology and psychotherapy for over a quarter of a century (while being fascinated by many of its valuable insights, in sundry places). I'm very skeptical of the very concept of social science, from its inception with Comte to the present.
You dismiss the APA as an untrustworthy, biased, unscientific source, but encourage people to trust NARTH?
NARTH is a scientific source, run and maintained by PhDs in the same disciplines. Its also an advocacy organization, but the APA has done more than its share of advocacy in its long life time.
Awesome. I guess that's par for the course for someone who dismisses Science and Nature as leftist propaganda while pimping right wing think tank press releases as scientific gospel.
Now you're just doing your best Exorcist imitation and spewing leftist boilerplate at me. No thanks. The editorial board of Nature, for its part, is well known to have sold its soul to Green ideology and the fantastic government funded Lysenkoist AGW fraud long ago. Science has not been far behind in purveying junk science as the government grants keep rolling in and the intellectual destruction of an entire earth science went on as the money and ideological fever it sustained took on a life of its own and overflowed its banks (the entire thing is really over now, but the corpse is going to twitch for some time to come). The tens of thousands of earth, natural, and hard scientists, engineers, statisticians, mathematicians, and other intellectuals/academics who will have nothing to do with CAGW is testament to its utter failure as a theory (a state it never achieved in any case, empirically speaking).
Still, that doesn't tell us what evidence you have of your claim.
You can do your own homework. NARTH has substantial resources and links to the relevant material.
Though you've now added the heavy burden of you dismissing the main professional organizations in the field of psychiatry and possibly psychology by associating them with failed theories in the history of those fields.
You don't understand. The entire field of psychology proper is subject to serious question - all of it - as to the origin and nature of homosexuality. The reason is that, far from being science, in the normative sense of the term, psychology is liable to deep and pervasive influence to subjective cultural, social, psychological, ideological and political factors arising in the society around it and as it is embedded in the intellectual and generational milieu in which it formulates and conceptualizes its theories and belief systems. It is (like sociology, cultural anthropology, social work, education, and other similar disciplines) a highly fertile soil encouraging the proliferation of intellectual fads, fashions, freewheeling theoretical speculation, personal ideological agenda, and politicization.