[N. Theknow]

One can’t simply repeat that the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals is non-biblical; plenty of what has become common practice was once deemed unbiblical. One can’t invoke the Vincentian canon quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est (“that which is believed everywhere, at all times, by all”), not unless one wants to roll back the ordination of women and the possibility of remarriage after divorce (to name but two prominent non-universal points).

I can't find in my Bible where God destroyed any cities for having women priests or laid waste any urban centers for allowing divorced couples to remarry.

I am also quite perturbed with "supposedly" learned people comparing homosexuality to being female, divorced and/or black.

When was being female or black ever a sin?

[Martin Tell]

When I began considering the effect of Vicki Gene's consecration, I also started with the proposition that being a woman is not a sin (this in response to the revisionists' constant harping on the similarity of women's ordination and homosexual ordination).

After considerable study and prayer, particularly regarding the history of how ECUSA came to ordain women, I concluded that women's ordination and homosexual ordination had many similarities. Both resulted from pride and a sense of political entitlement, not the calling of the Holy Ghost.

As to the prevalence of divorce, maybe it should be rolled back. Divorced bishops are a horrible example for Christians.

Looks like the Archdruid is firmly in the revisionist camp. I am not surprised.