It is hard fully to plumb the depths of the absurdity the Church of England has placed itself in by deciding it 'would allow gay clergy to become bishops if they promise to be celibate'. Don't they mind being a laughing stock? It's not - or not quite - that non-celibacy is absolutely essential to gayness. No more than heterosexuality always requires the full fwoahhh with orgasmic consummation, if I may put it thus, must gay relationships reach this level, or so I imagine; holding hands and the occasional chaste cuddle might sometimes, or for some people, suffice. But I think we can safely hypothesize that for most people of most sexualities, and therefore for gays, going beyond the chaste cuddle is important and, anyway, enjoyable.
So gay OK but only celibately is just laughable, in a way that is hard to replicate by analogy. Perhaps if an all-male golf club decided to admit women from now on, but only provided they impersonated men on club premises: dressing in male clothes, endeavouring to speak in a deeper voice, sharing train-spotting experiences, and so forth. Or how about admitting Christians into this, that or the other type of organization on the condition that these Christians agreed never to pray? I tell you, it tests one's powers of belief.