No, no correlation. A lot of it is social and historical in nature, based around performance/identity/in-group out-group, etc. It is no more related than the "are all hairdressers gay" or "actors gay," which when looked at historically how certain careers have been more friendly/open to gays in times of oppression, and hence within that new subcultures develop, which create new patterns, performances, identities, etc. If you meet a large group of gays outside of a gay conference, bar, etc. you'll see that pretty much their personalities, ideas, etc. run the gamut, as much as straight people. It's just that it is easier to stereotype them, because often in an attempt of misplaced solidarity and the simultaneous excitement/irritation at suddenly finding a whole world of others like themselves, they stereotype themselves. Excitement because you aren't alone, irritation because growing up in your small town, you felt yourself a sort of special flower. I think, perhaps, the narcisism comes because of this simultaneous contradiction. We grew up (many of us) in environments where we had to reinvent the wheel, from square one: no role models, no books, magazines, etc. "for us," no real boyfriends to explore who we were, except maybe a few furtive kisses in the woodshed. THEN, (usually in college) we move off and find a whole other world of people just like us. It is a strange, wonderful, frightening realization and sometimes leads to a competitive atmosphere of trying to out-queer the queers. The need/history of special-flowerdom (even a negative feeling when growing up), nevertheless is still special-flowerdom, a feeling that is hard to abandon when it has been so foundational and a very real (and important) defense mechanism. Just my opinion, of course, but overall there is nothing special about homosexuality any more than there is anything special about heterosexuality. Everything that we call as such is just a construction with multiple, complicated sources observable through an analysis of discourse.