I always loved to read. When I was nine years old, I started writing my first "novel." I never finished it, of course.

Also, when I was nine years old, I fell in love for the first time. With a girl in my class. So beautiful, she was.

Nothing happened between us, of course. I didn't know what to do. And it couldn't have turned out well even if I weren't so socially backward and ignorant.

Oh, no. I imitated my favorite writer of the time, Edgar Rice Burroughs.

I loved adventures stories. I wanted to swing through the jungle with Tarzan and kill huge monsters with a spear. I didn't want a man to rescue me. I wanted to rescue the beautiful princess.

As for sex . . . I didn't even appreciate how ridiculous it was for John Carter to fall in love with Dejah Thoris, when her race on Mars reproduced by laying eggs. And yet they had children.

He covered her face with burning kisses? What more could be wanted or needed?

My belief -- thoroughly unsubstantiated by science -- is our sexualities are largely hereditary, though shaped by our experiences.

For instance, some people are kinky about wearing rubber. Obviously, that's not hereditary. Cave people didn't have rubber.

But, given that survival of the species is one of the great laws of biology, why should some members of that species have a drive counter to doing their part. (And let's ignore technology here. Cave people didn't have artificial insemination. Most of the world still doesn't.)

I actually believe that's a legitimate point. Here's my thoughts.

Way back, before the agricultural revolution, people lived in small, family groups of hunter/gatherers.

Most marriages were no doubt young adolescents discovering hormones together while the rest of the group huddled around the fire, listening to stories.

There may have been no more of a ceremony than the young couple being given an extra bear cloth and clay cooking pots.

It was a dangerous existence. Boys ran the risk of accidents while hunting and when fighting other groups.

Girls ran the risk of giving birth.

Everybody ran the risk of winter starvation and infection from wounds.

Most marriages probably didn't last more than five or ten years. Sooner or later, after a few kids, one member of the couple died.

Leaving the survivor alone with the kids.

The women could take care of the kids, but not feed them meat.

The men could still hunt, but not take care of the kids.

But they were no longer young and prime mating material.

Enter the type of gay male some Native American Indians labeled 'contrary.' He dresses and acts as a woman, and is accepted by the tribe as such.

So he makes a simple deal with the widower. The gay guy takes care of the kids, gathers leaves and roots, and cooks whatever meat the hunter brings home. And just happens to have a tight hole to replace his dead wife's.

Do you really think the average cave man was picky about where he stuck his thing? I could be wrong, but I don't.

If the man died, leaving a widow, along comes the woman who enjoys hunting with the men. She brings home the deer and field rats for the widow to cook for her children, and sleeps beside her to comfort her.

A win/win situation all the way around, I believe.

And, you notice, that includes the children. They do have a better chance of surviving to reproduce themselves if they have both parents. But who said the people filling the parental roles have to be the biological parents?

For the survival of the species, the survival of the offspring is most important, especially in a species -- that is, human beings -- where it takes many years before the person can survive on their own.

So that's my theory. By having a diversity of sexual orientations, human beings can socially adapt to different situations more easily, especially in response to hardship. Which was never far away during the Paleolithic.

4. What do you think of people opposing homosexuality on the basis of religion?

I don't argue with people's religions. I mean, and I know this is an old-fashioned attitude, I believe that's personal.

But I find it more than a little ironic that various homophobes condemn the choice of homosexuality.

Yes, I understand they claim that since every homosexual made the conscious choice to be a homosexual, they can therefore choose to become heterosexual. And they run therapy center to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals.

And I realize that, if homosexuality really is hereditary, as I believe, then it's beyond conscious choice. And it means some people are hardwired to be sexually attracted to their own gender just as most people are hardwired to be sexually attracted to the opposite gender.

And if that's true, it would seem unfair to discriminate against homosexuals, when they're just following their genes. And certainly unfair to call it a sin.

However, that way of thinking leads to a logical conclusion I find amusing.

See, if sexual orientation is a conscious choice, why choose it?

Especially when, in this time and culture and even more so in many other countries where homosexuality is still a crime and where people can be executed for it?

For all the discrimination gays and lesbians face in modern-day America, Europe, Canada, and Australia, it's nothing compared to what gays and lesbians faced even in the recent past.

I'm not defending any injustice, just putting what we face in historical perspective.

The only logical reason to make the choice for homosexuality is that's it's MORE pleasureful than heterosexuality.

And some preachers do go on about homosexuality as though it's the ultimate pleasure of the flesh, the essence of Sodom and Gomorah.

And they hate pleasures of the sex, so true believers should have sex only with their husbands and wives, and not enjoy it, because sex between men and women is not enjoyable?

Smashwords' limit -- continued with next question

Frankly, much as I do enjoy my sexuality, I doubt it's measurably or objectively "better" than heterosexuality. That just doesn't make sense to me. An orgasm is an orgasm. Are my orgasms more intense just because I get them from sexual contact with a woman, not a man?

I'm sure heterosexuals feel passion as strong as mine. History verifies this. If heterosexual men and women didn't enjoy their mutual attraction, there wouldn't have been nearly so many wars.

So I find it amusing that, in while preaching against the sin of homosexuality, they make it sound so attractive.

But I do understand the historical basis for the prejudice. Let's face it. Human history is the chronicle of wars between tribes and nations of people.

If your tribe goes to war with my tribe, and we've got five thousand warriors and you've got ten thousand, you're probably going to win the war.

Therefore, it's logical for teachings from those times to condemn any sexual practice which potentially reduces the tribe's number of future warriors. Whether homosexuality or the sin of Onan, who spilled his seed on the ground by jacking off instead of screwing some woman.

Women are sexy.

Men aren't.

Sorry.