Internet Catches Texas Senate Altering Timestamp on Abortion Bill Vote

[jmdrake]

Rand was one of the earliest defenders of the nascent LGBT movement.

Moral views

In 1971, Rand published The New Left, a collection of essays that attacked feminism and the sexual liberation movements, including the gay rights movement. Rand called them "hideous" for their demand for what she considered "special privileges" from the government. She addressed homosexuality in the course of an attack on feminism, stating that "[T]o proclaim spiritual sisterhood with lesbians... is so repulsive a set of premises from so loathsome a sense of life that an accurate commentary would require the kind of language I do not like to see in print."[1]

In response to questions from the audience at the two Ford Hall Forum lectures she gave at Northeastern University, Rand explained her views in more detail. In her 1968 lecture, she said, "I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults."[2]

Harry Binswanger, of the Ayn Rand Institute writes that, while Rand generally condemned homosexuality, she would adopt a somewhat modified view of it "when she was in an especially good mood."[3] Further, intellectual heir Leonard Peikoff stated that there were people with whom Rand was "just as close, knowing full well that they were homosexual" and that "she certainly regarded some of them as Objectivists."[4]

 

[Smart3]

Moral views

In 1971, Rand published The New Left, a collection of essays that attacked feminism and the sexual liberation movements, including the gay rights movement. Rand called them "hideous" for their demand for what she considered "special privileges" from the government. She addressed homosexuality in the course of an attack on feminism, stating that "[T]o proclaim spiritual sisterhood with lesbians... is so repulsive a set of premises from so loathsome a sense of life that an accurate commentary would require the kind of language I do not like to see in print."[1]

In response to questions from the audience at the two Ford Hall Forum lectures she gave at Northeastern University, Rand explained her views in more detail. In her 1968 lecture, she said, "I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults."[2]

Harry Binswanger, of the Ayn Rand Institute writes that, while Rand generally condemned homosexuality, she would adopt a somewhat modified view of it "when she was in an especially good mood."[3] Further, intellectual heir Leonard Peikoff stated that there were people with whom Rand was "just as close, knowing full well that they were homosexual" and that "she certainly regarded some of them as Objectivists."[4]

I've got the same view, even the change when I'm in a good mood.

 

[Carlybee]

Wow did this thread get off track. Its about the falsification of the time a vote was taken, not whether or not you supprt the bill. If you believe that because you think the bill should pass that its okay to cheat then you must think its okay for every bill regardless which side you support. Ultimately its about integrity with regard to honoring the rules of order and whether or not you hold the voting on some issues to a lower standard than others. They got caught redhanded and in a very public manner. They made themselves look bad and the process rigged. All it will do is fire up the opponents even more when they vote on it again.

 

[asurfaholic]

Yea.. That part is really screwed up. It's never alright to cheat in order to win.

 

[Natural Citizen]

This is normal for these guys:

Aside from that, the altering of the timestamp relative to this vote is illegal. To continue to allow criminal processes from our representatives to go unchallenged welcomes it's continuation. Vote them out. All of them. That's my opinion on it if they are too big to prosecute.