For #1: I've given this a lot of thought too. There is quite a bit of scientific evidence that people are born homosexual, however the evidence suggests that homosexuality is more caused by hormonal influence during fetal development than genetics.
that there has always been a certain percentage of the population that is homosexual or bisexual, all through human existence, and that it's a function of genetics and natural selection. I find this to be very intriguing, because I am a believer that nature finds ways to correct overpopulation (or you could say that overpopulation's strain on nature leads to certain events).
The logical problem with this theory is that if homosexuality really did 'correct' overpopulation, then people with the homosexuality 'gene' would have fewer children, thus reducing the presence of such a gene in the population, to the extent that, after several iterations, such a gene would only represent a miniscule amount of the gene pool, not the significant percentage of gay persons today. One possible explanation is that if gay persons had fewer children, in times of famine, their children had a better chance of survival into adulthood. However, there has been no evidence of more gay persons in overpopulated regions or time periods.
#2: I think with gender attraction it's also likely people figure out they have attractions they previously weren't aware of, or were only vaguely aware of. If there's a scale of gender attraction (see Kinsey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports)) then people who are predominantly heterosexual might never seriously consider engaging in a homosexual relationship or encounter until they meet a 'gay' person. It's like slash. It's a lot easier to write it after you've read it, but can you honestly you didn't have an unconscious interest beforehand?
no subject
that there has always been a certain percentage of the population that is homosexual or bisexual, all through human existence, and that it's a function of genetics and natural selection. I find this to be very intriguing, because I am a believer that nature finds ways to correct overpopulation (or you could say that overpopulation's strain on nature leads to certain events).
The logical problem with this theory is that if homosexuality really did 'correct' overpopulation, then people with the homosexuality 'gene' would have fewer children, thus reducing the presence of such a gene in the population, to the extent that, after several iterations, such a gene would only represent a miniscule amount of the gene pool, not the significant percentage of gay persons today.
One possible explanation is that if gay persons had fewer children, in times of famine, their children had a better chance of survival into adulthood. However, there has been no evidence of more gay persons in overpopulated regions or time periods.
#2: I think with gender attraction it's also likely people figure out they have attractions they previously weren't aware of, or were only vaguely aware of. If there's a scale of gender attraction (see Kinsey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports)) then people who are predominantly heterosexual might never seriously consider engaging in a homosexual relationship or encounter until they meet a 'gay' person.
It's like slash. It's a lot easier to write it after you've read it, but can you honestly you didn't have an unconscious interest beforehand?