LOL.
I'm okay with ordaining married men. I'm only not okay with the idea that sexual continence is not something that ought to be expected of Christians, which is what this article amounts to.
Sexual continence involves a total awareness and control of the sexual energy during lovemaking. This means that the couple can experience complete union with the possibility of reaching many orgasms. This kind of love fusion does not end with ejaculation for men nor an explosive discharge of sexual fluids for women.This seems to be a Tantric thing.
THere was another definition I found: "Sexual continence is abstaining from sexual actions until married, and remaining strictly faithful within marriage."
But nothing in the article suggested that all humanity is expected to practice Sexual continence. In fact, the point seemed to be that marriage was God's gift to fallen man to practice sexual continence.
I do believe that man should be able to resist sex until and unless he is in a marriage. But God does not cause us to be tempted above that which we are able, but also with the temptation makes a way to escape, that we may be able to bear it. Marriage is our way to escape the sexual temptation, which appears to be near-universal in men.
It seems to me that requiring the entire population of church leaders to avoid this way of escape is something akin to the guy on the roof turning down the boat ride and then wondering why God wouldn't save him from drowning.
Not that marriage by itself is a cure for men's sexual proclivities. But it helps.