Loudmouth, obviously someone thinks the Bishop and co have broken a law, so what are you on about?
The anti-discrimination law is there, whether you or Runner like it or not.

Runner, some of the Churchy people are well aware of child sex abuse amongst their ranks though aren't they?
People in glass houses...

Suse,

suse wrote: "but why bring people's children into the argument?"

Because this is as much about the welfare of children as anything else.

suse wrote: "What rubbish, when it has been proven otherwise by numerous studies." ("it" being that same-sex parenting isn't good for kids).

Well its a rather heroic assertion that anything on this has been "proven" one way or the other. There is research finding both for and against on the issue.
But either way, it isn't, or at least shouldn't be, illegal to make statements which are factually wrong. So even if your claims were true (and I don't think they are) this shouldn't preclude people from opining the alternative. Its not illegal to say the sun rises in the west and the way to address someone who made that claim would be through counter-argument, not the courts. At least not in a democracy.

Clearly this is just a case of the self-proclaimed morally virtuous attacking the church which they hate. I wonder if a muslim cleric saying homosexuality was a crime would be dragged before the courts or does their victimhood status out-rank the gay's victimhood status.

Suse, given we are discussing clergy, I thought you might enjoy the following story.

Many years ago, when few westerners had ventured into the dark continent, a young cleric and his young bride set off looking for converts. They approached a village and were shown into the chief's hut.

THe young cleric explained he'd come from britain, where the queen ruled over an empire so vast the sun never set on it.

He went on to say that the queen wore a crown and sat on a throne and was attended by an army of footmen! And he was there as her representative to extend the hand of friendship.

The chief was very impressed and asked if he could have one of these crowns and a throne? Whereupon the young cleric produced a copy of an early Sears and roebuck catalogue looked up theatrical props; and showed the chief, the finest examples, who wanted both ASAP.

A runner was dispatched to the nearest telegraph and several weeks later the crown and throne arrived with a sceptre thrown in for effect.

The chief was delight and proceeded to hold court until he noticed all his people now stood head and shoulders over him!

So he ordered that his throne be lifted into a rudimentary loft and settled in to hold regal court.

No sooner than his bulk hit the centre of the heavy throne than the loft collapsed bringing the hut down with it.

Now the moral of the story is, people in grass houses, shouldn't stow thrones.
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty I did like your little tale : )
I can actually imagine that happening. The missionaries tried anything to make the native peoples believe in their make-believe stories.

Mhaze, children are already successfully part of same sex couple's lives, so how will making same-sex marriage legal change anything?
It won't...

Joe,

We now live in a truly awful society, infested with people who have been left in peace for a long time to get on with their perversions and peculiarities privately. But that's not enough for them: they insist that the rest of us should actually approve of them. If we don't we are bigots. They are too stupid or arrogant to know that their sort of politics (and that's what it is all about) is just the thing to drag Western society down low enough, weaken it enough, to make it a pushover for Islam. Then these maggots will really find out who hates them and will not tolerate them as we do. Tolerance is just disliking something, but not bothering to do anything about it. They should learn to appreciate that. There is no tolerance in Islam. They do something about- actually too - people like this bloke.

Call me a "bigot", but I object to anybody walking down the street nude. I object to people urinating or defecating in the street, or making love on the beach in plain view of everybody else. I object to the idea that it is OK to have sex with children, or with animals. I object to fathers marrying their daughters, mothers marrying their sons, or brothers marrying their sisters. When it comes to cousins marrying cousins, I don't think it is right, but I am somewhat more lenient. I know it occasionally happens, and as long as it does not become fashionable, I can tolerate it. Even though I do not approve of it.

Homosexuality is exactly the same as incestuous cousins. I can tolerate it, but not approve of it. And I would be just as offended at seeing males being passionate with males on a street, as I would if I saw women walking around shopping centres in bikinis.

And I am not religious at all.

My concept of what is right and wrong may be based upon Christian principles, but I made up my own mind about things long ago.

To my mind, homosexuals have something seriously wrong with their genetics. I am sorry that they are that way, and I feel sorry for them. As long as they are discreet, I can tolerate them. I can even tolerate nudists and kissing cousins, if they are discreet and don't flaunt their behaviour in my face. I will even protect nudists, kissing cousins, and homosexuals from those who would physically harm them. I would even protect them against people who wish to discriminate against them up to a point. Because I think that some discrimination against sexual deviants is fair enough, especially with religious people who's revulsion of sexual deviancy is a lot stronger than mine. But if sexual deviants keep demanding that I must accept them as perfectly normal, and that they can flaunt their behaviour in front of me, my tolerance will come to an end. Instead of being tolerant, I will become very intolerant.