There is quite a bit of controversy at the moment about the possibility of therapy that is said might lead to gay people becoming straight. Albert Mohler, for example, has written an article about it which misses the point.
People argue about whether it is ok to condemn homosexuality. But that is surely neither here nor there in the argument! Consider this:
- It is acceptable to be either male or female.
- However, there are some people who are biologically male who wish to be female, or vice versa.
- In modern culture, that too is acceptable.
- We as a culture do not have a problem with men who wish to become women undergoing therapy to help them make that change.
- Biological gender is clearly "hardwired" in a deeper sense than sexual "orientation".
- Hence if we allow someone who wishes to change their biological gender to undergo therapy to do so, then we should also allow someone who wishes to change their sexual orientation to undergo therapy to do so (whether straight -> gay or gay -> straight)
- Therefore, even in an areligious secular liberal state, we should allow therapy for people to change their sexual orientation.
Note that this argument does not assume that homosexuality is right, wrong, neutral or disordered. It does not assume anything about the authority of Scripture. It is therefore much more likely to be accepted as an argument by people who don't agree with those points. I don't understand why it isn't used more.