Controversial biologist Alfred Kinsey’s sex research again is coming under fire from lawmakers and social analysts.
As usual, the mainstream press all but ignores the attacks.
Some of the attacks on Kinsey recently came from Minnesota State Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen. He says his comments were made in a couple of places.
“Kinsey came up, somebody asked a question. It was about education at a forum or something. I responded that I have strong reservations about Kinsey’s research,” Gruenhagen said.
“I also have brought up the fraudulent basis for Kinsey’s research at some House committee meetings,” Gruenhagen said.
“It just came up in relation to and in committee reports in relation to the sex education in public schools and how the Kinsey institute provides information to SEICUS,” Gruenhagen said.
SEICUS is the Sex Education Information Council in the U. S. and they in turn send information to our colleges and universities to educate our sex ed teachers in our public schools,” Gruenhagen said.
Gruenhagen says he opposes the popular trend toward “safe sex” because ultimately, that’s a misleading term.
“Obviously I oppose the Kinsey-based philosophy of the safer sex approach which is an oxymoron. I also oppose the fraudulent basis of the Kinsey research,” Gruenhagen said.
“We’re basing our sex education programs in our schools based on fraudulent research. One of his fanatical disciples is Hugh Hefner,” Gruenhagen said.
Gruenhagen also voiced his opposition to Kinsey during a legislative hearing on House Bill 853, a crime prevention bill. Sally Jo Sorensen’s article in the American Independent reports that after a presentation on money being appropriated to fight sex trafficking, Gruenhagen spoke up.
“I would make this comment. You know, I’ve been active … in jail ministry and I’ve seen some of the mess that you’re talking about, okay. And the perversions amid the things that are being done to our young people,” Gruenhagen said.
“I’ve done quite a bit of laymen’s study on this. One of the things I would mention is that we need to destroy the so-called research basis for the justification of what’s going on in our culture and society with our young people, or the porn industry or whatever,” Gruenhagen said.
Gruenhagen points the finger squarely at the people in our culture who still defer to Kinsey’s reports. He says the sex trade and pervasive perversion are the direct fallout from Kinsey.
“And that is Dr. Alfred Kinsey’s work, okay? He published the Male and Female Report[s] in 1948 and 1956. That research is filled with fraud and lies. That research provided a so-called justification for sex with children down under the age of five years old,” Gruenhagen said.
“It is fraudulent, it is a lie, and yet the Kinsey Institute out of Bloomington, Ind., continues to publish and promote their filth into our government and into our sex education programs in our public schools. Do the research, ok? We need to destroy his research,” Gruenhagen said.
Social commentator Michelle Laque Johnson says in her report in “Reflections” that there is a link between Obamacare’s funding to treat sexually transmitted diseases and provide contraception and Kinsey’s research.
While Gruenhagen says the Kinsey comments didn’t necessarily come up in relation to Obamacare, social analyst and law professor Dr. Judith Reisman says that Kinsey’s research and Obamacare are complementary of one another.
“Kinsey’s research is an historic fit with all Obamacare that legitimizes sexual ‘rights’, like abortion, sex education, homosexual, bisexual, and transgender economic and legal ‘rights,’ and etc.,” Reisman said.
“More perverts will be paid to sexually traumatize all our children and to induce sexual predation and addiction in large numbers. Hence the need for government sexually transmitted disease services, such as abortions, condoms, etc, for our youngsters, Ah, the benefits of Obamacare,” Reisman said.
Fighting Obamacare is one of Gruenhagen’s missions in this legislative session. He says he’s filed several bills to deal with the various problems Obamacare is presenting to the state of Minnesota.
“I have eight bills that deal with healthcare reform and trying to negate aspects of Obamacare,” Gruenhagen says, adding that his desire is to eliminate as much government involvement in health care as possible.
Even with Gruenhagen’s legislative effort and Reisman’s research, Kinsey’s surveys have permeated academia and politics. However, there is a group of lawmakers from around the country that are trying to reverse the process.
Reisman points to a paper issued by a group called the American Legislative Exchange Council. The 2,400 member ALEC group issued a report called, “Restoring Legal Protections for Women And Children: A Historical Analysis of The States Criminal Codes.”
The report takes direct aim at what it says is Kinsey’s “junk science,” saying that Kinsey’s research is a major cause of a breakdown in morality and is the catalyst fueling the homosexual marriage effort.
The report also says that some of the uses of Kinsey’s data have risen to the level of criminal offenses.
“The evidence presented in this State Factor reveals compelling evidence of illegal and criminal acts masquerading as science taken from Kinsey’s confessions in his own ‘Reports’ (1948-1953),” the introduction to the report said.
“Dr. Alfred Kinsey was a ‘sexual revolutionary’ and his ‘Kinsey Reports’ are junk science,” the introduction said.
The report includes a comment from Notre Dame Law School professor Dr. Charles Rice. Rice says Kinsey’s “facts” are at best, misleading.
“They’re contrived, ideologically driven and misleading. Any judge, legislator or other public official who gives credence to that research is guilty of malpractice and dereliction of duty,” Rice said in the report.
California State Sen. Ray Haynes wrote the introduction to the ALEC report. The authors of the report say that some of Haynes’ introduction has been omitted when the report has been discussed in legislatures and forums debating homosexual marriage.
“Today Kinsey’s ‘junk science’ is the unquestioned foundation for all the legal, legislative and media debate on marriage and civil unions,” the report said.
“Another entire paragraph was missing on the effect of Kinsey’s fraud on the debate about homosexuality in legislatures nationwide – and the statement that these bogus data were cited by the U.S. Supreme Court to normalize sodomy in the Lawrence decision in 2003,” the report said.
“The ALI Model Penal Code Reporters cite Kinsey’s junk science claiming that in 1955, 72 percent of males experiment with mouth-genital contact, 40 to 50 percent of farm boys have animal contact, and 37 percent of the total male population has at least some overt homosexual experience to the point of orgasm between adolescence and old age,'” Haynes’ actual introduction said.
Haynes went on to challenge the Kinsey findings.
“This accounts for nearly 2 males out of every 5 that one may meet. In spite of its reliance on junk science, this section of the Model Penal Code was cited favorably by the Supreme Court to normalize sodomy on June 26, 2003,” Haynes’ introduction also said.