The Following is an Analysis on the Byrd Article 
by a BYU Professor based on a discussion with Robert Rees

 		  

According to this BYU professor,  Byrd made "a number of good points, showed compassion and gave some good advice", but Byrd's "allusion to outcome data was misleading,"   Further, he "dismissed the biological evidence too cavalierly," and his "comparison with depression was unfortunate."

He indicated there  is a "pretty large" sample of married people who have been reoriented successfully  who live what appear to be happier 

...when you talk with these people they "still seem gay" and there is no such thing as a cure...
lives. But when you talk with these people they "still seem gay" and there is no such thing as a cure.  He believes that for some over time their homosexual feelings can diminish and that they can have successful opposite sexual relations.  He admits that we still get people who have not found a solution.

He feels that Evergreen is doing good.  When he asked my opinion, I said it was limited to what other therapists had told me about it, which was essentially negative, and the experience of a young gay man in our ward who was seduced or at least sexually approached by someone at Evergreen.  My experience is limited but I feel the good is mainly confined to already married persons.

He does not know what the answers are and he feels it is regrettable that there is "no recourse and no offical support system to give either emotional or structural support" for homosexuals.

He says there has not been any systematic work done on this subject in the past thirty years.  I suspect that he may not have done so because

 "...there has not been any systematic work done on this subject in the past thirty years."
it is controversial.    He has a lot of anecdotal information and lots of stories, but nothing that one could rely on to make generalizations.  And he agrees that generalizations are dangerous without good science.