Hongarije verbiedt 'promotie' van homoseksualiteit onder jongeren- #13

Deze poll, alsof dit het punt is Ik stem ja, Hongarije mag zelf hun curriculum bepalen!

quote:

Op zondag 27 juni 2021 01:02 schreef Godfried_met_den_baard het volgende:

[..]

Je hebt de wet dus niet gelezen. Zeg dat dan meteen

Ik heb niet de hele wet gelezen, dat klopt. Met welke van mijn reacties had ik eerst de wet gelezen moeten hebben? Gelezen heeft overigens uit jouw toetsenbord klaarblijkelijk een nogal bewerkelijke definitie. Heb je al gevonden waar Etto aangaf dat de wet tot doel had homo's te bekeren?

Je snapt zelf vast ook wel het probleem met de vraagstelling he? Of je begrijpt de opgeworpen bezwaren niet.

quote:

Op zaterdag 26 juni 2021 23:57 schreef Isdatzo het volgende: [..] Vooralsnog heb ik geen enkele ondersteuning voor deze claims gezien.

Het betreffende document heet nota bene Sexual Education. Daarin wordt stapsgewijs uitgelegd hoe belangrijke deze educatie is en dat hij vanaf het eerste levensjaar moet beginnen, onder meer met uitleg over masturbatie.

Nu kun je wel proberen daar allerlei nuances in aan te brengen, maar dit document van de WHO is niets anders dan een vrijbrief voor pedofielen om hun gang maar te gaan. Het moet immers van de WHO.

quote:

Op zondag 27 juni 2021 01:11 schreef Godfried_met_den_baard het volgende:

[..]

Oke. Dit vermoedde ik al een tijdje.

Nou dan even lezen en daarna je morele monopolie komen uitkotsen

Welk morele monopolie? Voor welke reactie van mij had ik de wet moeten lezen?

ik hoop dat dit de ommekeer wordt in dat hele woke gedoe

quote:

Op zondag 27 juni 2021 01:16 schreef Godfried_met_den_baard het volgende:

[..]

Voor ALLE reacties

Nu ben je gewoon ongefundeerd aan het trollen

In zijn geheel niet. Ik ageer tegen jouw geroeptoeter over wat Etto beweerd zou hebben, wat voor zover ik zie niet waar is. Heb daar de wettekst in zijn geheel niet bij nodig hoor.

Verkeerde topic

[ Bericht 90% gewijzigd door Kijkertje op 27-06-2021 03:35:45 ]

quote:

Op zondag 27 juni 2021 02:57 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Dit gaat best wel ver:

[ twitter ]

Ik had tegen beter weten in gehoopt nooit meer iets van dat Trumpgezwel te vernemen.

Brutal. Savage. Brilliant.

So what do these studies taken all together mean? We can definitely say that homosexuality is not caused by a certain genetic makeup. The most that could be gleaned from all the studies is that certain individuals (due to their genetic makeup) might be more at risk of falling into homosexual behavior when placed under certain environmental factors. Just like alcoholism has been linked to genetics (about half of the risk for alcoholism can be explained by genetics according to National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism) making some members of society more prone to becoming addicted to alcohol if they start drinking, so it seems the case with homosexuality. Certain people might be more prone to becoming homosexual when exposed to certain influences in their lives. Interestingly though, alcoholism is listed as a disorder in the American Psychiatric Association’s Manual of Mental Disorders while homosexuality is not. If people genetically inclined to become alcoholics abstained from tasting any alcohol, they would not fall into this disorder. Yet our society is inundated with messages about LGBT down to public schools where they are being taught there are up to a hundred different sexual identities (BBC, 2020). It is important to note that according to the available research, genes have a much bigger role in alcoholism (50% of the risk of alcoholism is due to genetics) than homosexuality (only 8-25% of homosexual behavior can be explained by genetics).

https://muslimskeptic.com(...)termined-from-birth/

Much of the research in sexology is not objective as many researchers in the field are themselves LGBT and have personal motivations behind their studies.

Kinsey was himself of the “LGBT community” and he was bent on using science to rationalize his own unorthodox sexual desires. From his time until now many of the scientists researching sexuality are from the LGBT community including Dean Hamer who reported on genetic difference between homosexual and straight individuals at Xq28 location of the genome earlier discussed in this article, Simon LeVay who did research on brain differences between homosexual and straight individuals, Anne Fausto-Sterling and more.

The authors of the big genetic study led by Ganna’s team worked with LGBT advocates in writing the research paper as well as presenting the research to the public (Lambert, 2019). This is a clear example of bias. Why should scientists have to work with advocates of anything in presenting their research? Yet they tout this in media as if it were a good thing. Shouldn’t science be free of interference from political and social influences?

https://muslimskeptic.com(...)termined-from-birth/

According to Gallup, numbers of people who identify as LGBT have been rising since 2012, when Gallup first started tracking the measure and the rise is almost completely because of more millenials (those born between 1980-1999) identifying as LGBT. LGBT identity has slightly declined among older generations (Gallup, 2018). This is another indication that LGBT orientation is not biological. Some have argued that the rise is due to more people feeling comfortable with their identity and becoming more willing to embrace their identity due to more social acceptance. This, however, does not explain why the rise in numbers of people willing to identify as LGBT is age specific to the younger generation. Also, younger individuals not only identify themselves as LGBT more often than older individuals do, more of them also report ever having had sexual relations with the opposite sex compared to older individuals (Ganna, 2019). This means that the increased self-reports about LGBT self identity are not due to more people “coming out of the closet” with their identity, but rather a reflection of more younger people engaging in homosexual behavior in recent years.

https://muslimskeptic.com(...)termined-from-birth/

In accordance with the scientific research available in this field, the American Psychological Association (an organization that wholeheartedly supports homosexual expression and rights of such individuals to get legally married) recognizes that there is not enough evidence to support a biological cause for homosexuality (APA, 2013).

https://muslimskeptic.com(...)termined-from-birth/

There is a myriad of research that has found that there is a strong positive correlation between childhood sexual abuse and neglect and homosexual orientation. One way of carrying out such research is a longitudinal study where groups of interest are followed as they age and go through life and see how the factor under research is affecting their life.

https://muslimskeptic.com(...)termined-from-birth/

“While hundreds of species have been documented doing it [same sex mating] on isolated occasions, only a handful have made it a habitual part of their lives” says Paul Vasey of the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada and that “humans are the only documented case of ‘true’ homosexuality in wild animals” (BBC, 2015).

https://muslimskeptic.com(...)termined-from-birth/

In the animal kingdom, among chimpanzees, one will find instances of killing one’s own kind, stealing, bullying and the like. Yet such behavior in chimps is never used as a moral justification for murder, theft, and aggression on the basis of a natural biological occurrence. In cases of murder, theft, and aggression, everybody agrees that these are unacceptable behaviors, so why is mating with a member of one’s own sex any different? Since when do people take animal behavior as the criterion to justify if doing something is morally right or wrong? What differentiates us humans from animals that weave between mating with their own sex and the opposite is God’s prohibition about approaching members of our sex, as members of the opposite sex are readily available for marriage to us. God narrates the story of Lot to us in the Quran when Lot said to his people: “Do you commit a shameful deed that no man has ever done before? You lust after men instead of women! You are certainly transgressors.” (Araf 80-81) Unlike animals, we humans are given divine orders and prohibitions that govern our lives. We must live abiding to the limits set upon us by God.

Conclusion
Those who claim that homosexuality is predetermined from birth point to twin studies, genetic studies, studies that have aimed to pinpoint physiological differences between “homosexuals” and “straight” individuals and cases of animal same sex mating to prove that homosexuality has a biological cause. We have analyzed that the twin studies done in this topic are either too small to draw conclusions or they show a significant environmental effect on homosexuality, the only large genetic study in this field discovered a small link between risk taking behavior (one of which is homosexual behavior among other things) and genetics. Correlation does not mean causation, so the existence of physiological differences between homosexuals and straight individuals doesn’t mean that those differences are a manifestation of a biological cause for homosexuality.

In light of all the evidence examined in this paper, the answer to the question, “Is homosexuality predetermined from birth?” is simply “No.” A number of environmental and social factors play a significant role in someone developing homosexual proclivities.

We conclude by cautioning the reader that they must keep in mind that since this is a socially and politically charged topic, the science behind it is influenced by political agendas and biases. In our day and age, many that simply try to claim that homosexuality is not innate are immediately attacked and find themselves at the receiving end of much vitriol, whereas those that argue that homosexuality is caused by biological mechanisms are celebrated, no matter how dodgy their arguments and research. For this reason, any research done in sexology must always be carefully analyzed instead of being accepted at face value.

https://muslimskeptic.com(...)termined-from-birth/

quote:

Op zondag 27 juni 2021 03:35 schreef intellectuele_user het volgende:
Brutal. Savage. Brilliant.

So what do these studies taken all together mean? We can definitely say that homosexuality is not caused by a certain genetic makeup. The most that could be gleaned from all the studies is that certain individuals (due to their genetic makeup) might be more at risk of falling into homosexual behavior when placed under certain environmental factors. Just like alcoholism has been linked to genetics (about half of the risk for alcoholism can be explained by genetics according to National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism) making some members of society more prone to becoming addicted to alcohol if they start drinking, so it seems the case with homosexuality. Certain people might be more prone to becoming homosexual when exposed to certain influences in their lives. Interestingly though, alcoholism is listed as a disorder in the American Psychiatric Association’s Manual of Mental Disorders while homosexuality is not. If people genetically inclined to become alcoholics abstained from tasting any alcohol, they would not fall into this disorder. Yet our society is inundated with messages about LGBT down to public schools where they are being taught there are up to a hundred different sexual identities (BBC, 2020). It is important to note that according to the available research, genes have a much bigger role in alcoholism (50% of the risk of alcoholism is due to genetics) than homosexuality (only 8-25% of homosexual behavior can be explained by genetics).

https://muslimskeptic.com(...)termined-from-birth/

Much of the research in sexology is not objective as many researchers in the field are themselves LGBT and have personal motivations behind their studies.

Kinsey was himself of the “LGBT community” and he was bent on using science to rationalize his own unorthodox sexual desires. From his time until now many of the scientists researching sexuality are from the LGBT community including Dean Hamer who reported on genetic difference between homosexual and straight individuals at Xq28 location of the genome earlier discussed in this article, Simon LeVay who did research on brain differences between homosexual and straight individuals, Anne Fausto-Sterling and more.

The authors of the big genetic study led by Ganna’s team worked with LGBT advocates in writing the research paper as well as presenting the research to the public (Lambert, 2019). This is a clear example of bias. Why should scientists have to work with advocates of anything in presenting their research? Yet they tout this in media as if it were a good thing. Shouldn’t science be free of interference from political and social influences?

https://muslimskeptic.com(...)termined-from-birth/

According to Gallup, numbers of people who identify as LGBT have been rising since 2012, when Gallup first started tracking the measure and the rise is almost completely because of more millenials (those born between 1980-1999) identifying as LGBT. LGBT identity has slightly declined among older generations (Gallup, 2018). This is another indication that LGBT orientation is not biological. Some have argued that the rise is due to more people feeling comfortable with their identity and becoming more willing to embrace their identity due to more social acceptance. This, however, does not explain why the rise in numbers of people willing to identify as LGBT is age specific to the younger generation. Also, younger individuals not only identify themselves as LGBT more often than older individuals do, more of them also report ever having had sexual relations with the opposite sex compared to older individuals (Ganna, 2019). This means that the increased self-reports about LGBT self identity are not due to more people “coming out of the closet” with their identity, but rather a reflection of more younger people engaging in homosexual behavior in recent years.

https://muslimskeptic.com(...)termined-from-birth/

In accordance with the scientific research available in this field, the American Psychological Association (an organization that wholeheartedly supports homosexual expression and rights of such individuals to get legally married) recognizes that there is not enough evidence to support a biological cause for homosexuality (APA, 2013).

https://muslimskeptic.com(...)termined-from-birth/

There is a myriad of research that has found that there is a strong positive correlation between childhood sexual abuse and neglect and homosexual orientation. One way of carrying out such research is a longitudinal study where groups of interest are followed as they age and go through life and see how the factor under research is affecting their life.

https://muslimskeptic.com(...)termined-from-birth/

“While hundreds of species have been documented doing it [same sex mating] on isolated occasions, only a handful have made it a habitual part of their lives” says Paul Vasey of the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada and that “humans are the only documented case of ‘true’ homosexuality in wild animals” (BBC, 2015).

https://muslimskeptic.com(...)termined-from-birth/

In the animal kingdom, among chimpanzees, one will find instances of killing one’s own kind, stealing, bullying and the like. Yet such behavior in chimps is never used as a moral justification for murder, theft, and aggression on the basis of a natural biological occurrence. In cases of murder, theft, and aggression, everybody agrees that these are unacceptable behaviors, so why is mating with a member of one’s own sex any different? Since when do people take animal behavior as the criterion to justify if doing something is morally right or wrong? What differentiates us humans from animals that weave between mating with their own sex and the opposite is God’s prohibition about approaching members of our sex, as members of the opposite sex are readily available for marriage to us. God narrates the story of Lot to us in the Quran when Lot said to his people: “Do you commit a shameful deed that no man has ever done before? You lust after men instead of women! You are certainly transgressors.” (Araf 80-81) Unlike animals, we humans are given divine orders and prohibitions that govern our lives. We must live abiding to the limits set upon us by God.

Conclusion
Those who claim that homosexuality is predetermined from birth point to twin studies, genetic studies, studies that have aimed to pinpoint physiological differences between “homosexuals” and “straight” individuals and cases of animal same sex mating to prove that homosexuality has a biological cause. We have analyzed that the twin studies done in this topic are either too small to draw conclusions or they show a significant environmental effect on homosexuality, the only large genetic study in this field discovered a small link between risk taking behavior (one of which is homosexual behavior among other things) and genetics. Correlation does not mean causation, so the existence of physiological differences between homosexuals and straight individuals doesn’t mean that those differences are a manifestation of a biological cause for homosexuality.

In light of all the evidence examined in this paper, the answer to the question, “Is homosexuality predetermined from birth?” is simply “No.” A number of environmental and social factors play a significant role in someone developing homosexual proclivities.

We conclude by cautioning the reader that they must keep in mind that since this is a socially and politically charged topic, the science behind it is influenced by political agendas and biases. In our day and age, many that simply try to claim that homosexuality is not innate are immediately attacked and find themselves at the receiving end of much vitriol, whereas those that argue that homosexuality is caused by biological mechanisms are celebrated, no matter how dodgy their arguments and research. For this reason, any research done in sexology must always be carefully analyzed instead of being accepted at face value.

https://muslimskeptic.com(...)termined-from-birth/

Waarom is het precies 'Brutal. Savage. Brilliant.'

Dat er niet één duidelijk aanwijsbaar 'homo-gen' gevonden is? Dat het nog niet duidelijk is hoe het precies werkt omdat het om heel complexe mechanismen gaat waarbij meerdere/vele genen ism allerlei andere factoren je seksuele voorkeur/genderidentiteit kunnen bepalen?

Het enige wat dit artikel duidelijk maakt is dat er een sterke neiging in naar voren komt om vooral de tekortkomingen te benadrukken van de (weinige) studies die er tot nu toe gedaan zijn die ook helemaal niet pretenderen een eenduidig antwoord te hebben gevonden.

En daar is dan zijn/haar(?) conclusie op gebaseerd dat het niet aangeboren is?

Deze studie staat er trouwens helemaal niet bij: Male-like sexual behavior of female mouse lacking fucose mutarotase

[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door Kijkertje op 27-06-2021 05:38:16 ]

Valt me trouwens weer op dat het vooral om man-man gaat hier. Lesbo's blijven weer buiten schot.
Waarschijnlijk omdat de alfa mannetjes hie daar wel een stijfje van krijgen

quote:

Op zondag 27 juni 2021 11:00 schreef DarkwingDuck het volgende:

[..]

Waar precies blijkt dat uit bij de nieuwe Hongaarse wetgeving?

Wat?

Ik heb het over de voorstanders van die wet hier.

Continue geklaag over

2 vaders
Dragqueens
Mannen die op de pride boten staan

Over de vrouwen hebben ze het niet

quote:

Op zondag 27 juni 2021 11:03 schreef devlinmr het volgende:
Over de vrouwen hebben ze het niet

Nee waarom zou je klagen over twee vrouwen. Je bent toch geen homo

Ik snap dat het sommige users alhier slecht uitkomt:
Spiegel: An Uncomfortable Past for Gay Rights
"In the 1980s, gay rights groups in Germany formed an alliance with pedophiles who advocated the legalization of sex with minors. It's a dark period few care to talk about now."

De Groene: Hoe Den Haag de pedo’s vertroetelde

Andere Tijden: Ruimte voor de pedofiel

Reformatorisch Dagblad: Pedofielennetwerk al twintig jaar ongemoeid

Trouw: Homo’s en pedo’s





Newsweek: Hungarian Official Says 'Pedophiles' Can't Hide as Country Passes Law Banning LGBT Content for Minors

Progressieven stoppen niet tot de beschaving definitief slachtoffer hebben gemaakt van hun psychotische fantasieën.

quote:

Op zondag 27 juni 2021 10:13 schreef Godfried_met_den_baard het volgende:

[..]

Dan heb je een groot deel van zijn reacties gemist.

Bovendien stel je 'deze poll, alsof dit het punt is'. Waardoor je volgens mij toch een mening denkt te kunnen hebben over de wet

Wanneer er dan daadwerkelijk geflikflooid wordt in de klas, is bij sommigen de eerste reactie vooral "waar de foto's" van de betreffende WHO-geïnspireerde juf zijn:

NWS / Australische lerares schaamt zich voor sex met leerling.

Hypocriet stuk vreten

Kinderen seksualiseren onder de mom van 'seksuele voorlichting' deel 1

The International Guidelines on Sexuality Education was published by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in collaboration with other UN agencies including UNICEF, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and the World Health Organization (WHO). SIECUS and IPPF are mentioned multiple times.

Learning Objectives for Level I (ages 5-8)

-“Girls and boys have private body parts that can feel pleasurable when touched by oneself.” (p. 43)

-“It is natural to explore and touch parts of one’s own body.” (p. 48)

- “Bodies can feel good when touched.” (p. 48)

-Touching and rubbing one’s genitals is called masturbation.” (p. 48)

- “Masturbation is not harmful, but should be done in private.” (p. 48)

- “People receive messages about sex, gender, and sexuality from their cultures and religions.” (p. 39)

- All people regardless of their health status, religion, origin, race or sexual status can raise a child and give it the love it deserves.” (p. 51)




Learning Objectives for Level II (ages 9-12)

-“Both men and women can give and receive sexual pleasure.” (p. 43)

- “Relationship between excitement and vaginal lubrication, penile erection and ejaculation.” (p. 44)

-“Many boys and girls begin to masturbate during puberty.” (p. 44)

- “Steps for proper use of condoms.” (p. 51)

- “Definition and function of orgasm.” (p. 49)

-“Legal abortion performed under sterile conditions by medically trained personnel is safe.” (p. 51)

Link kan je hier vinden : http://www.comprehensives(...)ucation_original.pdf

Voor de mensen die het gemist hebben

quote:

Op zaterdag 26 juni 2021 22:19 schreef Ali_boo het volgende:

The Sexualization Of Children Through “Comprehensive Sex Education”

The key word is “inclusive.” Activists are aggressively promoting the idea that material must be “inclusive” so that it does not “discriminate.” This means that all sex acts and experiences must be taught, because if you "discriminate" against an act, behavior, or experience, then you are "discriminating" against a person.

Here’s another way of saying it: Activists believe that if children are not taught ALL of the sexual acts that go along with homosexual, transgendered, or any other relationships, as normal and equal to biological procreation, then that equals discrimination against LGBTQ+ people.

Students are actively being taught that the only barrier to any sex act whatsoever, when it involves another person, is consent. Not the risk of the behavior, or the physical and emotional damage or consequences of it, but whether there is mutual consent before an act is performed. Basically, students are learning that as long as it is performed safely and there is consent, every sex act under the sun is okay!

Heb heel wat users dezelfde argumenten zien maken in dit topic

Gij zult niet discrimineren enzo , Book of equality

Er is een 10 min durende video in de link : https://www.delawarefamilies.org/act-prpf-0237037185

Raad het iedereen aan om het filmpje te bekijken . Er is ook een lange versie beschikbaar van een halve uur, die kan je hier zien : https://www.comprehensivesexualityeducation.org/film/

- All people regardless of their health status, religion, origin, race or sexual status can raise a child and give it the love it deserves.” (p. 51)

Dit is gewoon een politiek statement en heeft niets met objectieve voorlichting te maken.