Early in the article, it states: 

 :The modern ex-gay movement has been broadly condemned by nearly all major psychological, psychiatric, and medical associations. Today, these secular associations point to a lack of scientific evidence suggesting that homosexuals can change their orientation and argue that homosexuals have no reason to do so aside from societal pressure. They say repressing those feelings may cause future psychological damage. 

 Read it again.  Broad condemnation.  Nearly all major associations.  Now read the policy on undue weight.  A key quote from it is: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each." 

 The simple fact of the matter is that the medical pro-ex-gay viewpoint should only be represented in proprortion to its prominence, and that means it deserves about two words, and one of those is "crackpot".  We give it more than that, and then only because this article is about the ex-gay movement.  You would like to rewrite the article into an ringing endorsement of the ex-gay movement, ostensibly in the name of neutrality, while it's painfully obvious that you're a partisan who doesn't understand what NPOV even means.