Missing the point

Once again, in their desperation to seem not too feminist or sexually unhip, Salon has missed the point entirely. They blindly insist that the only possible reason that people dog-piled Jack Ryan was because we are blushing prudes. Well, I can assure Ms Burana that those of us who think Ryan is an asshole, a twit, and a hypocrite don't think so because we weren't aware of exhibtionism. No, we just believe that if a politician feels that he can use the law, particularly a Constitutional amendment, to discriminate against people because of their sexual behavior, he'd better be prepared to offer up his sex life for careful examination to make sure that it is pure and holy as well. Does Jack Ryan profess a belief that discrimination against people because of their sexual desires is righteous? Let's examine what he says.

Homosexuals deserve the same constitutional protections, safeguards, and human dignity as every American, but they should not be entitled to special rights based on their sexual behavior.

Granted, he said "special rights", but we all know that's inflammatory rhetoric to describe "equal rights". The idea of it is that since he, Jack Ryan, could not be discriminated against because of homosexual behavior, then it's not discrimination. By that logic, since I am not a victim of racism, being white, it must not exist.
Anyway, he is for legal discrimination against people who have sexual proclivities that are outside of the Republican-defined norm. And you know what? Exhibitionism is outside of that norm, too. So, by his own logic, he not only doesn't have a special right not to be discriminated against, but it's our social obligation to smoke him out so we can discriminate against him.
And I'm not even going to go into how moronic the idea that tricking a woman into going into a sex club and then unleashing emotional abuse on her for her reluctance to have sex in public isn't "some ham-handed clueless guy 'encouragement'".