I read this post by Fr. Nathan Humphrey about remaining in relationship even when we think the other person is wrong. This post is in repsonse to that idea. If it were just that the reappraisers/liberals/progressives had wrong ideas, we would not be in this situation today. If all there were happening were listening and dialogue, then there would be problems, yes, but I doubt if the schism we are seeing today would be as big an issue.
Consider, if you will, the case of a husband and wife discussing the purchase of a new sports-car. The wife is dead set against it for several reasons, but is willing to be persuaded by the husband. She has several reasons, but the major reason is that they cannot afford the car. Still, they have been talking about a new car (and the husband suggesting a new sports car) for a long time.
One evening, while the wife is out doing something else, the husband purchases the sports car he wants. He tells his wife that he has been "in discernment" about this car for a while and doesn't undertstand the wife's anger.
Can you imagine the wife's reaction when the husband wants to continue to discuss the purchase of a new sports car?
Finally, if the husband has a habit of spending money that the family cannot afford, then the wife may have to divorce him to save the children - especially if the husband will not curb his spending and refuses to acknowledge that he is putting the family in danger.
I am not advocating schism, but a return to the status quo ante. If we are going to continue to discern whether God blesses homosexual sex or if the Church should ordain people who are engage in homosexual relationships, then we should first discuss it and then act when we have consensus. Don't buy the sports car and then ask for continued dialogue on the subject.