Now this is interesting. Thanks so much for sharing. It's nice to know it goes both ways (no pun intended).

No I meant people and animals gives me the same disgust as 2 men. Unless the animal is getting hurt too. Then it would make me angry at the same time.

People fucking animals give you the same disgust as 2 men fucking, that's what I was saying.

If it helps, I see creationism as a possibility, but the iron age books seem ridiculous to me. 

I also try to operate based on reason and evidence. The greater the claim: the greater the body of evidence required to substantiate it. The claim of 'this is god' would require so much evidence I don't think I could ever believe it.

The only conclusion for me is that noone can ever know the nature of god. That is what it means to be agnostic to me: the belief and acceptance that noone will ever know god.

I think you misunderstood what i said. There is no norm. There are aproximations of all kinds. If we had to have a norm it would be our general shape. In that regard an homosexual completely fits the norm. It's not an alien you know...

You're generalising. I obviously wasn't speaking to a norm of a complete human being, but the norm of sexual behaviour. Let's say that there's 5% (+/- 5%) of the global population that's homosexual (or bisexual or whatever). In this case 90% or more are heterosexual, thus making it the norm, or more accurate, the statistical mode. Meaning, if you pick people out completely randomly, there's obviously a higher chance to pick a heterosexual person.

And that's ignoring the biological narrative. Because a species is driven to evolution by reproduction, homosexuals can't naturally reproduce if they follow their attraction. That would make homosexuality a mutation.

But that's a silly distinction to make. So... say most people have brown eyes therefore those that don't are outside the norm. See, you make it sound like theres only 1 right or correct way to be, wich is the majorities. That is simply not the case. Every species atribute begins in the majority until natural selection leads to it's extinction (it may come back, but in very small numbers). After all this time, homosexuality still exists in a very considerable number. This means it is part of the norm, as you put it. 

The species is the whole btw. It's not just the majority. You can't write off a significant part of the population because they have blue eyes or because they have a different sexual inclination.

No, no. I'm not implying that one way is more right or correct than the other, just that one is prevalent to the other, thereby making it the norm. I'm not claiming anyone's better, just that there's inherent differences in the sexual behaviour between those groups of people.

And secondly, that's not how mutations work. I personally don't know if sexuality is genetic, as at least in some cases it appears that the influence in the personal development phase might modify it. But if it is entirely genetic, then it's a negative genetic mutation/trait, because it disables reproduction. So let's stop here, we might go on theorizing how and why that is, but we eventually won't get anywhere.

That's a very simplistic look at things, if it's genetic it doesn't need to be negative, you don't know in what ways this could affect the species as a whole in benefitial ways, if there was bad for the species then nature would have erased this behaviour and it hasn't, for milions of years it has been part of many species with no negative repercusions. 

But still is being disgusted by gay porn or sexual actions between two males the equivalent of being homophobe. It is simply a yes or no question OP is asking?