The "peer" reviewed study's data used for this conclusion?
NARTH mined nearly 100 years of research on attempts to change sexual orientation. Of course, the vast majority of those studies were done when aversion therapy was commonly practiced, when many people sought therapy because they were convicted of homosexual offenses before Lawrence v. Texas to avoid jail, when few clinicians bothered to do any kind of follow-up, and when the APA still considered homosexuality a mental illness.
And what about the peers from this "peer reviewed" study?
And as for this new journal’s “peer reviewed” status? Well, I guess when you have a paper written by an anti-gay activist posing as a therapist, and you send that paper off to other anti-gay activists posing as therapists, all of whom are members of your tight little NARTH club with no possibility of an actual independent review taking place, then maybe I would have to concede that the effort was “peer reviewed.” Unfortunately, that’s not the definition accepted by the scientific community.
So what's the next "scientific" study from NARTH being prepared for volume 2 of their new journal?
No one knows for sure but rumor has it (ok, so I started the rumor) that they have irrefutable peer reviewed data mined from former Miss California Carrie Prejean and Fred Phelps from the Westboro Baptist Church that shows that gays should not be allowed to marry.