Those NOM bastards are lying liars who would kill their mother if they thought it would win them an anti-gay constitutional amendment. They have no integrity, they have no soul, and we grant them no quarter. None. We wouldn’t cross the street to pee on them if they were on fire.

And what I’m objecting to is that you’re furthering this narrative, Ron, (that our opponents are soulless demons who lie because they’re evil) when you suspend doubt and speak for them.

We are not facing off against evil incarnate. We’re facing off against well-meaning folks who are ignorant, mislead, or blinded by their prejudices into believing that WE’RE EVIL INCARNATE. Let’s not blind ourselves in the very-same way that our opponents are blinded.

Regarding their past non-corrections of misinformation please consider what Ben in Oakland pointed out: In ways that may be inconceivable to us they have twisted reality to fit their prejudices in much the same way a large portion of our country has twisted reality to support the unsupportable notion of “Legitimate Rape.” Or Young-Earthism. Or Evolutionary-Denial. Or papal infallibility. Or all out denial of Global Warming. Or the Birther position. Or Regan Deification. In fact, NOM draws their staff from groups of folks who believe at least one of the above list. Not exactly the most rationally governed group, eh?

So why should our language matter?
Well the sooner we acknowledge their humanity the sooner we can start pointing out the ways their blindness forces them into immoral positions while allowing them to still think of themselves as moral.

If we say to not-violently-anti-gay-but-convinced-by-NOM Allison: “NOM’s a bunch of liars.” She’s going to instantly think that NOM HAS to be defended because otherwise she’s a dupe. And not only a dupe on issues but a dupe on judging people.

Most likely she already thinks she’s good at seeing evil people as evil (and what person do you know, on their side (not to mention folks on our side like Priya), who already KNOW what Good is what Evil is that they are experts on spotting it and there’s no way, save hell or high water, you can change their mind). So in order for Allison to acquiesce you are forcing her to admit that she’s not the person she tells herself she is. You’ve made the argument existential. Or at least, you’ve complicated the argument by adding existential considerations.

Plus there’s no reason under the sun that NOM’s immorality has to be a personal failure on her part. Think of Joe Wilson: How many of us, myself included, became instant defenders of all things Obama simply because his character was unjustly maligned? I know that I found myself defending things that Obama did that I didn’t even agree with.

If we simply allow NOM the benefit of the doubt, however, the dynamic becomes much much more conducive to conversation. Benefit of the doubt allows us the leeway to leave Alison’s personal judgments about people out of it. That way she no longer has to accept that she’s a personal failure but rather that she’s a victem of bad information from well-meaning people. Much easier to accept on a personal level. Don’t get me wrong; it’s tough to convince someone of as much but it remains worlds easier than to try to convince them that they’re a bad judge of character or anything remotely that personal.

What you’re doing by making an accusation is framing an argument by keying us in to the conclusion you’re going to reach. When you set the argument as “The other side is willfully lying” you’re being self-defeating. Not only have you invited a number of personal considerations into an argument where they don’t belong (if I’m opposed to your position) but you’ve also framed an argument that you cannot win. Because how do you know they’re lying? We don’t have a smoking gun. We don’t have an eyewitness. We don’t have corroborated evidence. We have our prejudice to dislike them and our inability to understand them. Is that lying? Perhaps. Is that willful lying? No. Not ever.

Look to Jon Corvino; not Dan Savage.

The bold is an effort to help skimmers see the bits I think are the most important. Please don’t interpret it in any other way.

I think you nail it Rob in that all we ever have in these situations is the suspicion of NOM lying. Unless we’re in the room I’m not sure how you can suspend the benefit of the doubt and maintain your integrity.

I think we’re projecting more competence on NOM than they are due. They’ve stopped our rights from progressing so we want them to be better at what they do than they actually are; I think part of their blindness stems from just how much of the real world they have to ignore in order to convince themselves that they are doing is worthwhile.

And some of the time I think they’re making a shortsighted mistake that a lot of Christians tend to make when they get wrapped up in evil dealings: assuming that the adjective “christian” means “ethical”.

Anyway, I’m going to read what’s been written and get back.

Case in point, when David Barton, and his lackey, Rick Green were discussing the ACP(a uber-conservative, anti-gay pediatric group), Green at one point called them “the leading pediatric association”, that boiled my blood. Their only intent was to “mislead” their listening audience into thinking that the ACP was the real McCoy. That way they could garner sympathy, support, and money from their less educated, and impressionable listening audience. They bank on the ignorance and laziness of their constituents. Good ole Ethel in Decatur GA, is certainly not going to question the advice of the great mounteback, David Barton. It would never enter her mind to look up the ACP and find out who they are, of course not. Every word that comes from the Wallbuilders Radio Program is true! So, Ethel, upon hearing this, screams at her husband in the other room to send a check to Barton for $10 to help them fight “teh gays”. Their motivations behind this were mendacious and devious, and certainly not Christian by any stretch of the imagination. The bastards knew exactly what they were doing.

I was trying to be diplomatic at the time, in using that word instead of outright calling it “lying”. I think it’s high time that we take the gloves off, and stop being polite. I think from now on, when I expose another of these charlatans, I’m just going to use the word “lying”, expose their hypocrisy in the face of their so-called Christianity, and rebuke the shit out of them. It is only through this MO, that we can show the world what they truly are, and that their intents are the least bit noble.