If your church's position is that the Bible was written by humans and that their irrational (and non-spiritual) prejudices and bigotry was woven into the fabric of Scripture, and the church has a procedure for determining what these points are, then I think you can justify women priests or homosexual priests.

The question remains, however, of whether all morality is relative if it is not a trespass (defined legally) against another person or his or her property. You could let zoophiles become priests, too. In fact, let's go farther than that. Your church could, theoretically, endorse a socialist state that expropriated private property and say that all notions of private property, up to and including "thou shalt not steal", are products of the time, and not God's Word. I'm sure you could then take Christ's injunction to the rich young man - "take all your possessions, give them to the poor, and follow me" - and justify government confiscation of private property.

The point is that you're at a point where no prescriptive prohibitions set forth in the Bible are going to have any meaning. Is your church comfortable with that? In all fairness, I personally have no problem removing all prescriptive prohibitions up to the point where there is a trespass against a person or his property. I am just not sure if that many other people are comfortable with what I'm comfortable with.

I am also fairly confident that the Presbyterian position is a different one, moreover. As a Calvinist denomination (or at least nominally Calvinist), I would love to see how they are resolving the massive internal contradictions between doctrine and practice.