RIDGELAND — I have written in these pages of my defense for people to practice religion as they see fit. That includes the concurrent freedom not to practice religion if that is the individual’s choice. Whether my neighbor is inspired by the Holy Spirit to speak in tongues or by Satan to engage in orgies is of no importance to me. I do draw lines, however, and would insist that satanic orgies be conducted in private and not include minors. I also oppose the practice of tossing virgins into volcanoes to appease whatever god exists in hot lava.
Another line I draw is on the use of therapeutic techniques that claim a Christian base but are in fact attempts to force a person to accept a narrow prescription for sexual orientation. I am speaking of “gay conversion therapy,” or as it is sometimes referred to, “reparative therapy.” This is a treatment that, according to various accounts, inflicts physical pain on its subjects in an effort to change them from gay to straight. One person reported in The New York Times that he was bound to a bed and forced to watch videos of gay men engaging in sexual acts while ice and electricity were applied to his body. The purpose was to equate gay sex with pain and, therefore, cause him to correct his sexual orientation.
Granted, some gay conversion therapists use conversational methods and peer support in their change efforts. Such support, however, can quickly degenerate into pressure and become very dehumanizing.
Regardless of how drastic or benevolent the method, this intervention does not have the support of reputable members of the mental health profession. Indeed, many have warned that the use of gay conversion therapy not only does not alter a person’s sexuality but that it has potentially harmful psychological effects.
According to the Human Rights Campaign, gay conversion therapy is legal in Mississippi. This raises a critical issue. Social workers must be credentialed in this state in order to provide therapy. As one who is both licensed and certified and who therefore has legal standing to provide clinical services, it is sobering to realize that someone with credentials identical to mine could conceivably employ gay conversion techniques. Most likely none do, given that such a method runs counter to the knowledge and value bases of our profession. Nonetheless, the state Chapter of the National Association for Social Workers should work to see that licensed social workers are prohibited from the use of this practice.
There are those who would claim that I am attempting to disqualify a legal therapeutic intervention because of its support from the religious right. I oppose it because it is based upon faulty science and is harmful rather than helpful.
It reminds me of “rebirthing” therapy, a controversial means once used to inspire foster children to accept foster parents. This technique involved the foster parent sitting on the child and letting them gradually emerge in order to symbolize a rebirth. A child died from suffocation during this process, for which two therapists served several years in prison. Religious belief had nothing to do with the treatment or the punishment. It was simply a harmful method.
Finally, I do believe that religious freedom allows for people to seek spiritual solutions to their problems. Any adult who is concerned that being gay or lesbian places them in a state of sin should be allowed to seek counseling from a cleric. The discussions that take place in a church context should be voluntary, actions should be agreed upon mutually and the actors should enjoy the sanctity of a confessional. There are, however, limits. The clergy cannot toss the “sinner” into the volcano, anymore than they can toss the virgin.
• Vincent J. Venturini is a retired associate provost and chair of Social Work at Mississippi Valley State University.
