There are multiple levels of comment.

Firstly: A scientific description of human behavior should be both objective and non- judgmental. It is quite appropriate to comment on matters of methodology; such as the criteria used to obtain samples, selection of controls, sample size and a myriad of other technical matters. Rates of abortion, incest, homosexuality etc. can be determined. Further each of these terms requires precise and exact definition. If it is shown that children as young as 5 months could be sexually active then it is of biological interest. How is it possible determine what is in the mind of a five months baby? We know that at age 14 years sexual activity is possible, especially in the form of masturbation.

Human societies do practice bestiality, sadism and so on. A role for the social scientist is to determine the extent of these practices in a stated society.

The Second level is having measured the extent of a practice is there a case for the state to intervene. “Public Health” can base choices on operational criteria. Subjectivity is unavoidable. A judgment that HBV, or HIV/AIDS is bad, is the consensus view. Therefore it is reasonable to attempt a reduction in incidence by promoting condom use and other harm minimization procedures.

A third level is the subjective reaction of society members such as Bill Muehlenberg:

As for Hollywood, I have no information as the motives of producers, except to believe it is to make money by entertainment. After all is that not what Hollywood does best?

It is the prerogative of the Australian Family Association to hold strong ethically opinions on matters of human sexuality. Yet, others are under no obligation to agree with them. My personal philosophy is, if a public health problem is identified and an intervention required, then harm minimization is the way to go.

Bill Muehlenberg's disgraceful essay is sourced from material published by the American Family Association (a fundamentalist Catholic organisation clearly linked to the Australian group).

Muehlenberg's sickening obsession with sexual perversity, as he sees it, is disturbing enough, but to be permitted by this website to publish this farrago of vicious lies and complete nonsense, and then see honest readers trying to deal with it, is enough to make me weep.

For a complete debunking of this dreadful crap, readers should google "Judith Reisman's Dirty Little Mind", or go straight to www.jesus21.com/content/sex/index.php?s=kinsey for the full disgusting story on Reisman and her followers in the AFA, including Table 34. Just for openers, neither Kinsey, nor his institute, experimented on anyone, let alone children. All the research was done by interview.

What's with all the ad hominem attacks on Bill Muehlenberg,like this last post from grace pettigrew (who seems to have had a lapse(?) as to the meaning of her name) or the earlier ones from David JS and Kenny. Is it because Muehlenberg is a Christian or because you actually approve the kind of sexual lifestyle advanced by Kinsey or is it you simply hate Muehlenberg and what he has to say, that you become irrational? Be upfront and be honest with us.

And while you are at it, why don't you actually read what Bill has written and if you are against him mount logical, honest, factual responses without attributing things to him that he does not say as some of you have done.

For what its worth, I reckon Kinsey and all those who both espouse his kind of philosophy and put it into practice have a lot to answer for, not least for their contribution for the precipitous decline in the birthrate in recent decades. As they say, demographics is destiny. Still the Christians and Muslims are doing their bit in this regard to reverse the trend.....

Aussie2 has a bad case of envey.Hollywood is fantacyland.What else would you expect?The rub bites when you start believing the fantacy.

Life is a relative experience.I was awe struck by the way Indian women on Bombay [1979] demonstrated dignity,self respect and purpose in life with almost no material possessions.

I did say that Kinsey may have a lot to answer for. And I'll give others the benefit of the doubt regarding the actual details of Kinsey's work. But Muehlenberg refers to "radical and deviant agendas" and throws homosexuality into that mix. Of course he is wise enough not to explicitly equate homosexuality with child abuse. But he obviously wants to connect being gay with a whole host of sexually unequal and abusive forms of relationships. And he blames 1960s radicals for the ills of the world.

I am fed up with homosexuality being listed as part of a host of perversions. I doubt if Muehlenberg would like prostitution or child abuse being equated with heterosexuality. Well then, perhaps he could return the favour for gay people.

While I can understand DavidJS being fed up with homosexuality being listed as part of a host of perversions, the reason why Christians, at least the orthodox ones, reject the homosexual lifestyle (and I believe Muslims do as well) is that the Bible does so with its outright rejection of homosexuality in favour of the Biblical mandate that "a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh", a statement later endorsed by Jesus Christ. As long as the Bible is (permitted to be) read and believed, at least some proportion of the population will hold to this opinion for religious reasons, though others may hold it for other reasons. One blindingly obvious reason is that life only continues through children - a homosexual union, no matter how beautiful it may be to those so engaged, remains a sterile union in so far as the continuance of life is concerned.

Regarding the comment, "I doubt if Muehlenberg would like prostitution or child abuse being equated with heterosexuality" I wouln't be so sure about that. With 98% or thereabouts of the population heterosexual, heterosexual prostitution and child abuse is bound to far exceed that perpetrated by homosexuals. And because of the relative lack of children in homosexual relationships, probably out of all proportion in relation to child abuse, although it does appear most sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests seems to have involved boys and not girls.