The Scripture one is complex. On the one hand, the Bible describes homosexual activity as sinful; on the other, it describes all of us as sinners. That is even before we get into the issue of how Scripture applies to us, i.e. whether it is all timelessly true, or whether some or all of it was contextually dependent.
The Tradition one is complex. On the one hand, the early church had married priests (and possibly bishops, e.g., Peter), but that tradition was replaced by the celibacy movement; on the other, the Anglican Church has had married priests and bishops for nearly 500 years (e.g., Abp Cranmer, initially), which is arguably tradition enough in itself. (Also, on married Catholic priests, there’s this.)
Further, Anglican theology is traditionally based in Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. The latter says that, if we can accept believers being gay, if we do not consider priests to be materially different from other believers, and, if we can accept priests being married, we have do not have self-evident reasons for refusing to allow gay, married priests.
Thus, some Anglicans (e.g., this one) have no problem with priests who are male, female, celibate, or married (whether to their own sex or the other). Other Anglicans find some of these combinations intolerable (but differ on which). Other Anglicans try to avoid the topic all together.