If you refuse to read the link, then your argument has no standing and has no relationship to what is being discussed.
The substance of my post still stands.
In other words you imply his conclusion that was drawn from the context was inaccurate. If that’s the case, then my contribution is not relevant to the context, true, but it is to the conclusion in the third person, since it becomes objective by the use of my “If” of my introductory paragraph.
I also make sufficient provision by using present and past tense in my post to make it readily applicable to most, but not all hypothetical situations.
I came across an article in which a man who is a Mormon and who calls himself gay is happily married to a woman.
It is reasonable to conclude that if he calls himself gay(this too is uncharitable), then he qualifies himself as homosexual, just as someone who calls himself a psychiatrist qualifies himself for the position of psychiatry, and we can in charity assume that he is, rather than not.
*you would have read that this man has not acted out on his homosexual urges either before or during his marriage. *
That doesn’t fault me. The conclusion did not jibe with the context, this is what is at fault, nor was my trusting the information which I believed was true.
*So you are saying that a marriage in which a man is married to a woman and is committed to her and only to her and has conceived children with her is an offence to God? Please explain your reasoning.
*
The reasoning isn’t mine.
In the context I presented it, yes. My context was where the husband was obstinate and complacent in homosexual sin and still married. There is even greater consequence in this condition. A person now severed from the friendship with God(given the conditions for capital sin), does not receive any acknowledgement for the good he does, even if it’s a lifetime of good deeds. When his friendship is restored, then he gains that recognition retroactively. All the more importance for confession in that state. All those baptized can confess to a priest, including protestants.
A spouse consecrates his/her partner through the Sacrament of Marriage. It is vital, since we have a holy bond, that each partner support the other in ensuring no capital sins becomes a barrier to their heavenly partnership. The wife should not be complacent to the husband’s, and the husband’s to the wife’s transgressions. She/he must take a stance against either’s sins.
I said “Regardless of how nonchalant she may view it, it is an offense to God and for the time being so is her attitude”.
True hypothetically or actually if it applies,and is explained in the previous paragraph.
I strongly urge you to read the link with an open mind before you comment further on this thread.
Not at the expense of assuming a poster would deliberately lie in his post on a Catholic forum.
Thanks anyway for the suggestion.
