Marriage should be honoured by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. -Hebrews 13:4
The problem is not only that Christ Himself did not allow for divorce and remarriage in the way that the modern Orthodox Church does, but also that the Orthodox Church did not allow for such things for many centuries. I think this is the essential point of the divorce example. For at least eight centuries, the Church declared one thing; and, then, because of the changing times, declared (and continues to declare) another. Many Holy Fathers, including St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom, forbade divorce except for the Scriptural reasons and CERTAINLY did not allow for remarriage (except in the case of widowhood...although even then they spoke against it).
I agree that the Bible clearly teaches on the sacredness of marriage, and of the sinfulness of divorce...
"And it hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery." - Matthew 5:31-32
"But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife." - 1 Corinithians 7:10-11
"A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die, she is at liberty: let her marry to whom she will; only in the Lord." - 1 Corinthians 7:39
"Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband, commmitteth adultery." - Luke 16:18
"And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? He saith to them: because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery." - Matthew 19:3-9
"And the Pharisees coming to him asked him: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? Tempting him. But he answering, saith to them: What did Moses command you? Who said: Moses permitted to write a bill of divorce, and to put her away. To whom Jesus answering, said: because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you that precept. But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife. And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house again his disciples asked him concerning the same thing. And he saith to them: whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." - Mark 10:2-12
Asterius of Amasea (c.400) (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/asterius_05_sermon5.htm
) speaks out in favour of divorce only in the case of adultery.
Your logic is essentially the same as St. Theodore the Studite's during the Moechian controversy. He said: "Christ established one practice (no divorce, except PERHAPS for X and Y). The Church has always upheld this. It has never allowed divorce as the Emperor wants it. That's good enough for me."
However, in the end, the Church decided to go another way and declared -- even to the point of drawing up new canons that flew in the face of universal practice and the teaching of the ancient Fathers -- that a new practice would be instituted.
If the Church were to do likewise in this case (female clergy), would that be "good enough" for you?
(Do we now see the urgent necessity to come up with solid theological reasons for the male priesthood? History by itself may not suffice.)
Firstly, I and others have already talked about the 'roles' assigned by God. Secondly you recognise that the church has changed teachings from historical norms. Is this something you agree with? You see, using 'tradition' as a rule, we can see if there is a change or not.
I agree with St. Tehodore said it represents the “...overturning of all things, even to [the spirit of] Antichrist,”http://www.synodinresistance.org/Theo_en/E3a3a001EkklesiologikaiTheseis.pdf
In thinking about this I have changed my position somewhat with regards what the church now teaches as I recognise that some in the church have changed the teachings. They seem to give lip-service
"Without condoning divorce, the Orthodox Church nonetheless in her pastoral care for her people permits remarriage with the blessing of a bishop."http://www.unicorne.org/Orthodoxy/articles/answers/divorce.htm
Although I accept that we are all sinners, and we make mistakes, I don't believe that the church should be ignoring a continual mistake; that of accepting a re-marriage in a condition not allowed by teachings as they were held from the very beginning of the church. I have no answer on this as some churches emphasise the fact that it is not ideal...
"The Orthodox Church recognizes the sanctity of marriage and sees it as a life-long commitment. However, there are certain circumstances in which it becomes evident that there is no love or commitment in a relationship.
While the Church stands opposed to divorce, the Church, in its concern for the salvation of its people, does permit divorced individuals to marry a second and even a third time.
The Order of the Second or Third Marriage is somewhat different than that celebrated as a first marriage and it bears a penitential character. Second or third marriages are performed by "economy" -- that is, out of concern for the spiritual well being of the parties involved and as an exception to the rule, so to speak."http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=139&SID=3
A novel idea is to re-interpret 'adultery' to mean not just unfaithfulness with another human being, but any other matter...
"I have been a priest for nearly 25 years. I have seen quite a number of couples seek divorces. I have never seen a case that did not involve adultery -ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Âwhether it be a case of giving oneself over to another person, or to another thing, such as alcohol, drugs, work, etc. One can surely put their spouse in a secondary position as a result of becoming infatuated, obsessed and/or controlled with/by another person; one can also surely put their spouse in a secondary position as a result of becoming infatuated, obsessed and/or controlled with/by power, wealth, addictions, careers, etc."http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=140&SID=3
Asides from others addressing your concerns over 'other arguments', I believe therefore that if the church has changed teachings here (on divorce) then that is bad. Simply doing the same for female priests would be to add to the wrong.