[CatoRenasci]

A fair reading of the biblical passages on homosexualtiy shows that the apostles accepted into the church those who had been homosexuals. Paul's call is not that we accept into the church only those whose past is blameless, but those who come to the church must choose to change their ways to follow Christ's teachings. Hence, it is not homosexual desire or even a homosexual past that is condemned, it is the practice -- just as the practice of adultery and fornication is condemned.

This is why it is not unreasonable to take the view that those with homosexual pasts (who are willing to be celibate) may be ordained. It is also the reason why making Vickie Robinson a bishop is so far out and unacceptable to the rest of the Anglican Communion: he not only left his wife and family because he felt homosexual desire, he has entered into and maintained an active homosexual relationship. From a theological point of view, it is little different from the church making a bishop of someone openly and notoriously living with a woman to whom he was not married. It wouldn't happen.

[the infidel]

...it is little different from the church making a bishop of someone openly and notoriously living with a woman to whom he was not married...

You're right: things would be a lot different if he'd left his wife for another woman or was shacking up with someone who was not his wife. Cohabitation and infidelity are politically correct as long as homosexuality is involved. As long as some sins have vocal proponents in the church, blatant double standards and moral and doctrinal decline will persist.

[SuziQ]

From a theological point of view, it is little different from the church making a bishop of someone openly and notoriously living with a woman to whom he was not married. It wouldn't happen.

Make you wonder why they don't see it that way. I guess their desire to push the homosexual agenda is stronger than their desire to teach the undiluted Word of God.