Entities reincarnate into both sexes in almost all cases. The ability to perform effectively in the male or female role has little to do with any permanent sexual orientation, but rather speaks to the creativity and adaptability of the entity. The most macho male may be in the next life a cloying, clinging female, playing both roles superbly. How is it that some entities incarnate exclusively into one role or another? If the birthing envoys find a rigidity in the entity and conclude that other lessons should precede addressing the rigidity, this situation may be allowed to continue. A matter of priorities. Some entities have a greater need for physical control, to be in charge, and when male move forward nicely with their other lessons. If placed in female form they are distracted endlessly with the control issue. Other entities have a reluctance to be responsible, the one in charge, and likewise cannot proceed with their lesson if in the male role. Does homosexuality reflect this reluctance? Without a doubt, but this is not the only cause of homosexuality.
During coupling, a man and a woman bring many elements to the mating. For instance, their physical needs, which can include not only sexual hungers but shelter and food and comfort. A man weary from work is not inclined to romance his sweetheart, and a woman worried about being tossed out of the house by the landlord is not going to be responsive to advances. Taking care of each other's physical needs is the first rule of coupling. In human society men and women are expected to fulfill different roles, and this goes beyond the inclinations that nature bestows. The male is stronger, fiercer, more adventurous, and as he is not the one to be pregnant or nursing, not only is best suited to be the hunter or wage earner but in most societies is expected to be thus. Need this be so? Of course not. If the couple prefers to switch roles, whose business is it but theirs, but these situations, which would be worked out by the couple in a blink of an eye, become an endless battle when friends, family, church, co-workers, and the rule of law poke their nose into the marriage. The second rule of coupling is to exclude all but the couple from decisions affecting the couple, excepted only when children join them and are old enough to express concerns. Of course, the council then becomes larger.
Disappointments often enter into coupling, where she hoped for more companionship, or he more sex, or she more travel, or he more free time. Successful coupling is not based on the absence of these issues, but on the ability to bring them forward for resolution. Does she sulk, or does he bury himself in the paper? Does she communicate by burning the toast, and he by failing to take out the garbage? Why not talk about it? The third rule of coupling is to have no secrets, so that matters can be dealt with frankly. So much better for her to tell him she wishes they could travel together as she loves sharing discoveries with him, watching his face light up, and for him to tell her he finds a hike clears his head of troubles so he can really listen to her at supper, as he doesn't want to disappoint her by being distracted. Or is burnt toast and piles of garbage better?