Half of young Dutch people reject homosexuality

7th March 2011, Comments 2 comments

Half of the young people in the province of North Holland reject homosexuality. On Sunday, LGBT rights organisation COC published on its website the resulted of a survey conducted by the North Holland health authorities among 10,000 students in secondary education.

The health authorities conducted their survey among students in the second and fourth grade of secondary education. They were asked to fill in a questionnaire via the internet. A similar survey was conducted in 2005. Half of those interviewed thought homosexuality was normal, 37 percent thought it was a ‘little strange’, 6 percent said it was ‘very strange’ and another six percent condemned homosexuality as being ‘wrong’.

The 2009 survey shows a slight increase in tolerance towards other life styles compared to 2005, when 56 percent of the young people rejected same-sex relationships.

Girls were generally more positive about homosexuality than boys. Just 39 percent of the girls rejected homosexuality compared to 61 percent of the boys. Young people of foreign descent were on average more negative about same-sex relationships compared to native Dutch children, 58 versus 49 percent. The survey showed that age and school type had no influence on attitudes regarding homosexuality.

The survey also showed that nearly half of those interviewed have unprotected sex, with girls engaging in risky behavior more often than boys. The North Holland health authorities said the figures were cause for concern and clearly showed a need for continued focus on prevention.  



© Radio Netherlands Worldwide

2 Comments To This Article

  • glenneboy posted:

    on 7th March 2011, 21:35:41 - Reply

    Sometimes the children know better than their parents.
  • JR Bailey posted:

    on 7th March 2011, 11:26:55 - Reply

    Apparently, the author of this article needs to take a remedial basic math course:

    61% is more than 58% (Native born vs Foreign born males)

    Further, the incontinence of the chronology of the article is exceedingly confusing so much so as to be nearly incomprehensible!

    The Editors of Examiner MUST do a better job than this article illustrates, so that readers will be able to actually obtain USEFUL information.

    Writer: please go back and re-write this article so that the numbers make sense in the context of the prose, and PLEASE take the time to provide some coherence to the timing of the studies (ie, 2005 comes BEFORE 2009 and keeping each set of results with the pertinent year would also be advisable).