I am mostly in agreement with previous posts. This is an interesting and enjoyable thread. I think that I may be able to add a mechanism that is a potential source of misunderstanding and a problem. It seems to me that the severity of offence is often greatly modified by the perceived motivation of whatever act has caused the offence.
It is possible that there are times when he is taking exception to the internal logic of your beliefs as opposed to the facts upon which your beliefs are based. It is easy to tell if he's disputing your base facts if you are both presenting them. I will tell someone that their beliefs are wrong if they have base facts incorrect, and will be willing to listen to an alternate set of base facts in many cases, and will at least be willing to address them if only to give reason for dismissing them.
I think that it's important to discuss religion and politics. I understand the rule, it is one that keeps an individual out of harm's way in the short term, and keeps the status quo in the long term. These things guide how our society acts as a whole (although there are other factors at play) and changing people's beliefs in these spheres is one of the most important things a person can do to change things for the better in my opinion.
However I am willing to accept that others have different points of view, different priorities, different belief systems. I am not willing to accept that others have different rules of logic. They may think that they do, however the simple fact is that they're illogical, are breaking the rules of logic, they are not making sense.
Perhaps you ought to phrase your statements differently (to please him) or get him to accept that it is your style of communication to be incorrect in a certain regard, however this enables you to accurately convey something else (to please you). An example of the latter may be that you say that an eight foot tall person shouted at you, when really he was only six foot six. You have inaccurately expressed the facts, however you may well have accurately expressed how intimidated you felt.
It may be important to him for you to begin your statements with something along the lines of "Given that it's a good thing to accomplish such and such, we ought to...". If you simply begin by saying "We ought to..." you have assumed common goals that may not exist. And then the one thing had better be a logical consequence of the other. I might disagree with you when I believe what you begin with and what you end with if you have drawn a false conclusion. A commonly used example that serves here is that I have a rock, and there are no tigers here and never are, therefore the rock keeps tigers away. I might agree that you have the rock and that there are no tigers, but I'll not agree that one follows from the other. It's possible that he pays more attention to the way that you phrase things than you do, and answers to exactly what you said rather than what you meant - as might be apparent to an NT by your non-verbal communication or some form of intuition derived from differently functioning minds.
If it is difficult for you to present sets of ideas in perfect order you might try offering ideas as simple statements of opinion instead of making apparent statements of fact or presenting sequences of reasoning where it might be applicable. I do not mean to suggest that you're stupid, there are brilliant people who have different gifts. I consider my innate ability to refer to a priori logic and apply it a gift, one that I'm obliged to use well. I will not agree to things that contradict it. I will not encourage others to do so either, that would be like allowing a blind person to walk into a ditch when I am next to them and I can see it. You see things I don't see, too. If my response sounds one-sided, it's because I'm most able to offer relevant information from only the one viewpoint. I think it's great that you're trying to see his side.
