Then by the way most in the atheist community use the term, you'd be an atheist.  Agnostic atheist.

Sounds weird that most of the quite scattered and unorganised atheist community would use so specialized categories and labels. In my experience those who are members of a religion and those who aren´t all seem to simplify that:

agnostic=don´t know if there is or if there isn´t god/s

atheist=know/are almost certain that there isn´t any form of god/s.

1.  Do you believe that there is a god?
2.  Do you know that god exists?

Agnostic could answer I don´t know to the first question and no to the second. Atheist could answer no to the first and could answer to the second question by saying that it pretty much knows that a god/s doesn´t exist (in the same way as a person could say that unicorns don´t exist). In the end the exact label doesn´t really matter, at least in this case, as the point was that he wasn´t religious.

To the point again, why is this:

attactive+attractive=weird/neutral/not good

attractive+non-attractive=great

non-attractive+non-attractive=bad/disgusting/even vomit inducing

And specifically to the op, I think you might have a bit of fear of the gay/bi sexuality, but you don´t seem to have any hatred kind of homophobia. And maybe you also think too much that gay sex= anal sex, which of course is not true.

I might reword that from "most" to "most prominent".  I haven't done a survey of all atheists, but the more prominent ones and the organizations that do exist for atheists (such as American Atheists) use that.  

The first question determines whether you are an atheist or a theist.  The second question answers whether you are agnostic or gnostic about it.  

An agnostic person can answer yes to the first and no to the second.  That person is agnostic, and they are also a theist.  An atheist can answer yes to both questions, and they'd be a gnostic atheist.  

Gnostic/agnostic are mutually exclusive.  Atheist/theist are mutually exclusive.  Aside from that, any other combination works.  Whether or not a person is religious or not is an entirely different question.  You can believe 100% in god, and not be religious.  You can be religious without believing in god at all.

Attractive+attractive is good, because I like seeing attractive people doing sexual things.  

Attractive+non-attractive is ok.  Assuming the non-attractive person is a male, I'd probably be imagining myself in his place.  If the non-attractive person is a female, then it's rather unlikely that I'd find her so repulsive that it counteracts the attractive person. But, it is possible.

Non-attractive+non-attractive is bad because why exactly would I want to see two people I don't find attractive in some kind of sexual activity?  If it is someone I actually find repulsive then it goes beyond that to disgusting.

For example:

1.Attractive+attractive/ female+female

2.Attractive+non-attractive/ female+male

3.Non-attractive+non-attractive/ male+male

The thing that I really wanted to know was why some people don´t really care for the first option and much more prefer the second option. For example the op. The examples of not liking to watch fat people etc. have sex doesn´t seem to really work as many people still want to look at porn that includes a person that they are not attracted to as well as a person that they are attracted to (option2).

Are they born that way?  Do they really just imagine themselves being the non-attractive one, being in his place? Are they taught that this is the normal way that they should enjoy?

I would like to know what people think about this.

i like to suck cocks and i don't think this is something i should be ashamed of

my boyfriend Misha is very good at anal sex

I've never understood the hate towards the gays. As far as I'm concerned, if life has proven anything its that there is amazing variance in everything. Sexual preference is just another concept with great variance. You can like old people, young people, non-people, male, female, all of the above, etc.

The only time we should care is when that sexual preference equates to predatory behaviors and is harmful to any party. This is where we have laws to protect those who would be victims (animals, children, those who did not consent, etc).

As the OPs specific question, I get grossed out watching people smoke, eat pickles, etc. This doesn't mean I'm an asshole, it just means I have no taste for that particular activity that others enjoy. I would not say you are homophobic just by being grossed out with the concept of homosexuality. It is simply something you have no interested in at any level. Now, if you take that a step further and attack those how are homosexual, demonize them, talk down to them or are literally scared when you see the act... that would make you out to be an asshole or literally homophobic (not implying that being scared as a literal definition is the same thing as being an asshole).

People just need to not be assholes. Accept that life produces great variation in everything. While there is commonality and scarce behaviors, none are inherently wrong unless they do harm to others.

Who cares really, gays live their own life and life goes on?

Pegging is hot, and it turns on women when their in control of a man even more usally...

transgender...now that's just fucked up how ever ya cut it. Ha cut it!

User was moderated for trolling - Aura7541

I admire your honestly!

I think a lot of people here are homophobic but they will not admit it.

I don't think you should be ashamed of it either.

Kinda gross though. But if you don't care about my delicate sensibilities then I won't care about yours.

You can keep sharing and I can keep telling you how gross I think it is.