View Full Version : Homosexual sex in America
Ok, I was bored...
I decided to use the 2004 election results - IQ (http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm) to help me make this table...
This shows the American State, the average IQ of that state, who they voted for in 2004 and whether homosexual sex is legal in that state.
(Please let me know if I am wrong about any of the states)
......State.......IQ..2004...Homosexual Sex
1 Connecticut 113 Kerry Legal
2 Massachusetts 111 Kerry Legal
3 New Jersey 111 Kerry Legal
4 New York 109 Kerry Legal
5 Rhode Island 107 Kerry Illegal
6 Hawaii 106 Kerry Illegal
7 Maryland 105 Kerry Legal
8 New Hampshire 105 Kerry Legal
9 Illinois 104 Kerry Legal
10 Delaware 103 Kerry Illegal
11 Minnesota 102 Kerry Legal
12 Vermont 102 Kerry Illegal
13 Washington 102 Kerry Legal
14 California 101 Kerry Legal
15 Pennsylvania 101 Kerry Legal
16 Maine 100 Kerry Legal
17 Virginia 100 Bush Illegal
18 Wisconsin 100 Kerry Legal
19 Colorado 99 Bush Legal
20 Iowa 99 Bush Illegal
21 Michigan 99 Kerry Illegal
22 Nevada 99 Bush Legal
23 Ohio 99 Bush Illegal
24 Oregon 99 Kerry Legal
25 Alaska 98 Bush Legal
26 Florida 98 Bush Illegal
27 Missouri 98 Bush Illegal
28 Kansas 96 Bush Illegal
29 Nebraska 95 Bush Illegal
30 Arizona 94 Bush Illegal
31 Indiana 94 Bush Legal
32 Tennessee 94 Bush Legal
33 North Carolina 93 Bush Illegal
34 West Virginia 93 Bush Legal
35 Arkansas 92 Bush Legal
36 Georgia 92 Bush Legal
37 Kentucky 92 Bush Legal
38 New Mexico 92 Bush Legal
39 North Dakota 92 Bush Illegal
40 Texas 92 Bush Illegal
41 Alabama 90 Bush Illegal
42 Louisiana 90 Bush Illegal
43 Montana 90 Bush Illegal
44 Oklahoma 90 Bush Illegal
45 South Dakota 90 Bush Legal
46 South Carolina 89 Bush Illegal
47 Wyoming 89 Bush Illegal
48 Idaho 87 Bush Illegal
49 Utah 87 Bush Illegal
50 Mississippi 85 Bush Illegal
According to this in 14 of Kerry's 19 states homosexual sex is legal, and in 11 of Bush's 31 states homosexual sex is legal.
So in 73.68% of Kerry's states homosexual sex is legal, whereas in only 35.48% of Bush's states homosexual sex is legal.
In seven of the top 10 IQ states homosexual sex is legal. So that is 70% of the top 10 states.
I think that gives a link between IQ and which candidate they voted for and whether homosexual sex is legal in the state.
As said before, if I am wrong about any of the states please let me know and I will correct my findings :)
So in conclusion...
Homophobic people = dumb :gigi:
I can confirm this. 9 Illinois 104 Kerry Legal. IL has always been a state of the democrat. homosexual sex is legal as gambling :gigi:
It's kind of obvious. Southern states tend to be conservative, hence christian and homophobic. Dumbness is just a side-product of all this. :p
Dumbness is just a side-product of all this. :pLMAO!! So true :laugh:
I more done this to find out if there were actually are Kerry states where homosexual sex was illegal, and I was surprised to find that some were :eek:
sometimes people are homophobic because they're dumb. just a thought.
ypsidan04
15-01-2006, 02:48
21 Michigan 99 Kerry Illegal
You have GOT to be kidding me! The last four elections have gone for the Democrat in Michigan. And the last time a Republican won, in 1988, was with only 53%. George W. has never won anything in Michigan, not even the 2000 primary election (John McCain).
Unfortunately, as of Election 2004, homosexual marriage is strictly forbidden in Michigan. But that's not what you're talking about here, is it? You're talking about, like, sodomy laws, right? Whether it is actually a crime on the books to have homosexual sex. If that's what you mean, then I can't see how it makes any sense for it to be illegal in Michigan. The homosexual population here is too high, and it's just too liberal of a state. I mean there is a gay man in our State House of Representatives. Not my rep, but very close to my area. I've heard him speak in person before. Despite the passage of the gay marriage ban (which I think wouldn't have passed if people knew more about it, that it would take away rights from homosexuals that they had enjoyed for years), I do believe that overall, Michigan is supportive towards gays - especially where I live. My county was one of only two in the state that voted against the proposal. And it just so happens that both counties contain the two largest universities in the state - something that I think is no coincidence.
I definitely agree with the overall conclusion here. :coctail:
You have GOT to be kidding me! The last four elections have gone for the Democrat in Michigan. And the last time a Republican won, in 1988, was with only 53%. George W. has never won anything in Michigan, not even the 2000 primary election (John McCain).According to this (http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm) it's illegal.
You're talking about, like, sodomy laws, right? Whether it is actually a crime on the books to have homosexual sex.Yup, I mean sodomy laws.
Khartoun2004
16-01-2006, 03:38
Actually Rachel you are wrong on all Illegal accounts. In June of 2004 the Supreme Court declared in Lawerance v. Texas (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jun20031200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf), that all laws in every state which out lawed sodomy or homosexual sex was unconstitutional and that no state had the right to interfer in consenting adults' bedroom activites (at least that's the clif notes version, click the link to read the entire court case).
This Court case is also important because it was crucial in the Massachusetts Supreme Courts decision declaring it Unconstitutional to deny Same-Sex couples Equal Marriage Rights.
Check your sources next time. Yours is 6 years old.
ypsidan04
16-01-2006, 03:41
Actually Rachel you are wrong on all Illegal accounts. In June of 2004 the Supreme Court declared in Lawerance v. Texas (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jun20031200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf), that all laws in every state which out lawed sodomy or homosexual sex was unconstitutional and that no state had the right to interfer in consenting adults' bedroom activites (at least that's the clif notes version, click the link to read the entire court case).
This Court case is also important because it was crucial in the Massachusetts Supreme Courts decision declaring it Unconstitutional to deny Same-Sex couples Equal Marriage Rights.
Check your sources next time. Yours is 6 years old.
Forgot about that. That is good for all states? Good. :D
Check your sources next time.Wooooo aren't you nice and blunt. I didn't think you could get any more accurate than that website, but oh well, I'll ask the big man up there next time. :rolleyes:
Anyway, I don't think that really matters, as it means that they needed that big intervention to make things change, without it things would still be the same and the Bush states would still be as stupid as ever.
Khartoun2004
16-01-2006, 03:58
Most laws in the US differ from state to state unless the Supreme Court "Intervenes" and says it has to be one way. States have a lot of power in the US to make their own laws. If it there isn't a specific law on the Federal books, states can do what they want. Yes there are usually federal guidelines, but that is all they are... guidelines.
Even tax laws differ from state to state. Massachusetts has a 5% tax on most stuff, while New York, which is right next to Mass has an 8% tax on everything including food and clothes. Mass has a stupid exsice tax on cars that has to be paid to the town you live in and the state every year, New York doesn't.
Also, the sodomy laws were all blue book laws from the very founding of this country, which nobody (especially in the North) took seriously unless the Police decided to be dicks. For example in New England (MA, RI, NH, VT, CT, ME) you couldn't buy alcohol on sundays until last year when people got around to changing certain laws which have been on the books since the 17th century.
on a grand enough scale, homophobic and heterophobic are the same because they are both "phobic" of something, so if homophobic ppl are dumb then aren't heterophobic people dumb too? let's not be phobic of anything and just accept*
PowerPuff Grrl
16-01-2006, 15:24
Anyway, I don't think that really matters, as it means that they needed that big intervention to make things change, without it things would still be the same and the Bush states would still be as stupid as ever.
If it were up to the people, segregation and Jim Crow laws would still be intact. Possibly even slavery. As well, women wouldn't be allowed to vote and so on and so forth.
But that can be said for every other country.
Australia would still be a racist with its "we only accept immigrants from Europe policy." Among other things. Canada would still be Francophobic, etc, etc...
What have we learned; most people are stupid and it is by the sheer will of God that they have not been elected into office. Except in the States.
Bush states would still be as stupid as ever.
:laugh:
What have we learned; most people are stupid and it is by the sheer will of God that they have not been elected into office. Except in the States.
That's why Arististotel claimed democracy was chaos. The masses in general tend to be backwards and conservative in their way of thinking. Liberalism is the way of elite intelectuals. It's not something an average man would consider as "normal", at all. Normal would be considered the pater familias type of situation the Middle East is in now.
Amy_Lee_Rocks
25-02-2006, 21:54
Some people are homophobic because they themselves are gay...
ypsidan04
03-03-2006, 17:24
on a grand enough scale, homophobic and heterophobic are the same because they are both "phobic" of something, so if homophobic ppl are dumb then aren't heterophobic people dumb too? let's not be phobic of anything and just accept*
I heard a comedian say once, forget who it was, that a better word for "homophobia" is "heterosexism". :p
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.