I fully disagree, although I think we should stop this religious talk, because we're getting way off-topic.

Religion is beliefs, not doctrines; beliefs are 'commonly' based on doctrines.
This whole debate could go in circles.

Hold on, what exactly are you doing at church if you think the bible is out of date? It's supposed to be the word of god and your source of faith...

wow, opened up a can of worms here haven't you. I'm about to be extremely controversial as i'm about to re-define the sexualities and add one more...

• heterosexuality - the sexual attraction between members of the opposite sex. I have no issue with this definition, here we agree.
  
• homosexuality - the sexual attraction between members of the same sex. Again, we agree.
  
• bisexuality - the sexual attraction towards members of either sex. Again, we agree.
  
• asexuality - the lack of a sexual attraction. Four for four, we agree again.
  
• polysexuality - ok, this is where we disagree. Polysexuals are bisexuals who are too pretentious to call themselves bi or somehow deluded into thinking there's more than two sexes. There isn't. This is just another name for bisexual and it's unnecessary because it doesn't matter how much they dislike the implication that there's only two genders, there are only two genders.
  
• pansexuality - again, this is another needless pretentious term for bisexual. It serves no purpose whatsoever except for identifying pretentious douches.
  
• transexualism - not a sexuality and should not be linked with sexuality, if anything this is a form of body dysmorphic disorder.
  

ok, that's the list so far. I feel we should add...

• paedosexuality/paedophilia - the sexual attraction towards pre-pubescent children.
  

now, according to any encyclopaedia there are four sexualities. Heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual and asexual. This is all, and i agree with this so far, the additional so-called sexualities posted earlier are unnecessary, but i feel we should add paedosexual (and perhaps gentrosexual; the sexual attraction towards the elderly), because it's so misunderstood and most certainly fits the criterion for a sexuality. It's a specific human characteristic that someone cannot become aroused without. To label it a fetish i feel is a way of masking it and pushing it to a point where people can ignore it, this is why the term "paedosexual" doesn't actually exist but the term "paedophilia" does.

The reason i feel it's important to recognise this fifth sexuality is all four of the others involve only consenting adults (or in the case of asexuality no-one), so no reasonable person can have an issue with them. But with paedophiles, they cannot engage in any sexual acts without involving someone who by definition cannot give informed consent. This is a major issue, because in our society we ostracise these people without a second thought. People seem incapable of considering that "child rapist" and "paedophile" are not the same thing, (oh and i hate the term "child molester", it's not "molestation" it's fúcking rape, call it what it is). A rapist is a sick twisted person trying to force themselves on others, usually to fulfil a power-fantasy. A paedophile is someone unfortunate enough to have been born with a sexual attraction to the only group of people they can't have sex with. There lives must be extremely difficult and they must feel extremely frightened every day. The world says how they'd slaughter "paedophiles" and how they're the scum of the earth constantly. Even smart, liberal minded people make these statements. This is why i bring this up, because honestly, how is anyone supposed to suppress these urges, come to terms with their desires and eventually get help from medical professionals if they can't even admit it to themselves without massive self-loathing and admitting it to even the closest of friends and family would make them shun them instantly. This isn't like homosexuality, paedophiles will never be able to stop feeling attracted to kids, so they need an outlet, therapy perhaps, and while we're making them out to be the scum of the world more and more of them are falling apart. It's common place for paedophiles to commit suicide when they admit their sexuality to themselves out of fear that they'll be labelled a child molester when they'd never dream of raping someone. This is the truly oppressed sexuality... The sad thing is, no-one can even stand up for them without being accused of being a child molester themselves, and that accusation terrifies people. Not me though, i'll always speak out for the minority.

...you wanted controversy clutch hunter, you've got it.

Oh, and i'm bisexual, the real kind of bisexual too, the kind that has sex with both men and women, not just the kind that says they're bi and kisses someone of the same sex when they're a bit drunk. Obviously i have no issue with other sexualities as i'm not a complete twat.

---------- post added at 11:52 pm ---------- previous post was at 11:45 pm ----------



why exactly... I mean let's face it, you're not hurting anyone, and if a horse doesn't want you to fúck it, you ain't gonna fúck it.

In all seriousness, bestiality isn't really a sexuality so much as a fetish, and really... I'm not sure where i stand on it. It makes me physically sick to think about it, but really if someone's prepared to put their dick in a doberman they're really rather brave, because you know what; if that doberman decides it doesn't like you any more, you no longer have a face. So really, i can't claim there's really a lack of consent here, animals aren't just going to sit back and let you screw them unless they want you to screw them. Personally, i'd rather just pretend it doesn't happen at all if it's all the same to you because i'm starting to feel queasy.

It's called being a liberal Christian

I'm heterosexual, and I will never change that. I don't have problems with any other sexuality asides from transsexualism. From my point of view, I think that you should enjoy the gender you are given. I also find it extremely weird, as it is a complex process to transgender.

That's the popular terminology. The less popular terminology is cherry-picking fool.

Nothing wrong with being a liberal Christian, it basically just means you are a theist but still respect people of other cultures. Kind of like how Muslim's believe Allah will still judge Christians and other monotheistic religious people as they believe in God. I wouldn't call it "cherry-picking", more of a civilised view towards other members of society.

Christian with a civilised view towards other members of society? Cherry picking. You can dress it up however you'd like in as many posts as you'd like but that's what it is.

Also the first sentence suggests you're not even a Christian but a regular theist. Clarify?