According to the Guardian:
Sexual research can mean anything from seeking to find out what kind of pictures arouse men and women to understanding why people engage in risky sexual behaviour that they know could leave them with a sexually transmitted disease or HIV. Its findings can be of use to anyone from the porn industry to Viagra manufacturers, as well as those working in public health. Representatives of the religious right in Congress have routinely called for funding to be cut, while evangelical organisations believe the entire attempt to understand sexual behaviour is wrong.
"We know the formula for sexual health, which is sex within a monogamous, lifelong relationship," said Reverend Peter Sprigg, director of marriage and family studies for the Family Research Council, a conservative lobbying group based in Washington. "Studying permutations of it is an effort like Kinsey's to change the sexual mores of society, so that what most people consider deviant behaviours look more normal."
Let's note what Sprigg says here: research like Kinsey's shouldn't get funding or attention not because it is wrong, because it uses flawed methodology, or because the researchers themselves are somehow dishonest. Instead, such research should be denied funding or attention because it reveals activity that is contrary to what religious conservatives "know" is correct sexual behavior and because revealing deviations could inspire people to accept such deviations as licit.
Imagine if similar standards were applied to other sciences, like biology. If that happened, then scientists would be prevented from properly studying things like the origin or development of life simply because religious conservatives already "know" the correct answers and the fruits of such research might inspire people to stop believing orthodox religion.
Oh, wait, religious conservatives already make such complaints and already work hard to restrict the teaching of biology. I wonder how long it will be before biological research is treated like sex research?
For religious conservatives, Alfred Kinsey is just as bad as (if not worse than) Charles Darwin. Neither should be regarded very highly, both should be ignored as much as possible, and crucial to their social agenda is the suppression of everything they did that might contradict their religious vision.
Read More: