You're guilty of making a vast assumption about the context.
What would be wrong with a marriage of political or business convenience involving no sex, if that's what it is? Obviously nothing. You've matter-of-fact labeled his sexuality without knowing either way.
I just used the word to refer to the point made in the original comment. I didn't really make any statements or assumptions about this person, and my comment wasn't even about this person at all — my comment was about the semantics of the parent comment.
You're guilty of making a vast assumption about the context.
What would be wrong with a marriage of political or business convenience involving no sex, if that's what it is? Obviously nothing. You've matter-of-fact labeled his sexuality without knowing either way.