What I am objecting to is the use of the term "Orthodox" in the title of his one-issue sect. That and the use of images of icons on his web site is misleading.

I've sent the same article to Justin Cannon in response to an e-mail he sent me in which he says "homosexuality is not a sin." To the Orthodox, as this article shows, it is. No worse than any other, as I;ve repeatedly stated here. But, when someone using the word "Orthodox" in the name of his group, states that something is not a sin, when the Orthodox Church says it is, then I must object. His is not true Orthodoxy, and being Orthodox, I do not like my Chrch being used in this misleading fashion.

As for tradition being "suspect" may I point out that in another post, he himself brings in the matter with "What about tradition?" If the millenia old traditions must be "suspoect" then the Lambeth Convention which he quotes in the article must also be disregarded.

Or is it that you will include only those traditional statements that fit your arguement and desparage all others that contradict it? This is poor theology. And "duh"! Of course, "no one" can refute the article if you choose to ignore, disregard their arguements in the same manner. This again is poor theology

I will continue to work on the refutation of the article as I promised. But if you're going to disregard and disparage what the Orthodox Church can bring to this discussion, it's a waste of time.