It is remarkable how compelling and influential a lie can be when it is endorsed by government and told and retold for 60 years. This brief article from the Kairos Journal tells the story well and it serves as a warning to our time, that the lies we allow to be told and do not refute early can have a devastating impact on a culture.
Abuses like Kinsey's "report" create reality. They have unleashed an experimentation with alternative lifestyles that have proven and will continue to prove joy-destroying because all that runs counter to the revelation and design of God cannot produce what it promises--freedom. It can only produce greater bondage to the slavery of sin. Our whole time and culture prove it.
Sex, Lies, and “The Kinsey Report,” 1948
Twisting statistics to one’s advantage is standard practice among homosexual ideologues. Collectively, they look back to a defining moment which seemingly turned the tables in their favor: the publication of Alfred Kinsey’s deceptive 1948 study Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. From this single work emerged a panoply of unfounded statements marshaled to dupe an unwitting public, including the now infamous claim that one in ten Americans is gay.1
Even conservative talk show host Bill O’Reilly has asserted that 6% of the population is gay when the truth is much more subtle—6% of the electorate might be gay because homosexuals are almost uniformly politically active. Even more stunning are the actual scientific studies conducted for more than the past decade which, when taken together, estimate that less than 3% “of males are homosexually active within a given year.”2
Kinsey, a zoology professor at Indiana University, challenged the whole notion of sexual standards, and claimed that homosexual, pedophilic, and even bestial behavior were “normal” sexual expressions. Purportedly an “unbiased” statistical analysis of thousands of men who volunteered to be interviewed about their sexual histories, “The Kinsey Report” as it was known, was no such thing. Prominent psychologist Abraham Maslow warned Kinsey about a fatal error in his study—volunteers for such a project, he said, would probably display a higher level of sexual deviance than the culture at large. Maslow’s instincts were accurate; the study took 25% of its sample from sex offenders in prison.3 Such subterfuge characterized the entire project.
Sexual Behavior in the Human Male sent shockwaves through American culture. Kinsey de facto declared morality obsolete and raised in its place the absolute freedom of the individual. Social radicals recognized his conclusions as powerful intellectual ammunition, and within twenty years, the professor’s ideology was at the vanguard of the “sexual revolution”—a precursor to mainstream acceptance even in governmental policy. Kinsey notoriously advanced the notion of “outlet sex”—sex is sex no matter how you have it, so long as there is sufficient stimulus to bring about the desired effect. Accordingly, adult heterosexual intercourse cannot be elevated above any other kind; it is only one option among many.4 Simply put, Kinsey’s program at bottom lashed out against one of his long-standing enemies; it was designed, executed, and publicized with a single over-arching ambition: to undermine Judeo-Christian teaching about sexuality.5
Recently, Dr. Judith Reisman (www.drjudithreisman.com) has extensively documented the fraud and crime evident in Kinsey’s work. For example, he apparently commissioned and directed sex research on hundreds of children aged 2 months to 15 years, intending to prove that preadolescents and even infants are capable of being stimulated to sexual climax by an adult “partner.”6
Despite being either discredited or superceded by more reliable research, Kinsey’s conclusions enjoy widespread acceptance because they advance a liberal and morally permissive social agenda. The Kinsey Institute at Indiana University still maintains its pledge to advance the legacy of its patron’s dubious contribution. The only way to reverse this influence is for God’s people to disseminate better facts, culled from better research, and made known for holy ends.
Footnotes:
1 This statistic itself is a misstatement of Kinsey’s own findings. See Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse, Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church’s Moral Crusade (Downer’s Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2000), 31-46.
2 Researchers Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse cite numerous reputable sociological studies conducted both in the United States and Europe to establish that the statistical incidence of homosexuality is far less than Kinsey’s supporters claim. See Jones and Yarhouse, Homosexuality, 31-46.
3 Kinsey at first agreed to a joint project to test this hypothesis, but when the initial results proved Maslow right, Kinsey severed communication with him. Flatly denying that “volunteer bias” could have had any substantial effect on his research, Kinsey refused to surrender his data for analysis. Judith A. Reisman and Edward W. Eichel, Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud (Lafayette, LA: Huntington House, 1990), 18-55, 181-183.
4 Ibid., 6-8.
5 Ibid., 8, 197-214. See also James Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1997), xii: "The man I came to know bore no resemblance to the canonical Kinsey. Anything but disinterested, he approached his work with missionary fervor. Kinsey loathed Victorian morality . . . He was determined to use science to strip human sexuality of its guilt and repression. He wanted to undermine traditional morality, to soften the rules of restraint . . . Kinsey was a crypto-reformer who spent his every waking hour attempting to change the sexual mores and sex offender laws of the United States."
6 Reisman, 8-9.
No comments:
Post a Comment