Does Acceptance of Homosexually Lead To Its Extinction?

Men and Women share over 99.9% of DNA in common with each other.  There may be some significant differences in the final result of the entity, but the building blocks are very very similar, and in fact, many things that we may believe to be unique to one gender, may in fact just appear on the other gender in a different form...

Given the population density of humans, minor mutations from individual to individual will crop up all the time, but unique only to humans, we are capable of sustaining individuals such that if a similar mutation occurred in another species, it would have wiped that individual out or prevented it from ever reproducing.

Homosexuality for most species would be a fatal flaw in an individual.  If the individual did not desire to mate with the opposite sex, it would not produce offspring and its "flawed" genetic sequence would be eliminated from the gene pool.

Now, for some species, similar mutations have had beneficial effects, some frogs are capable of spontaneously switching genders on the fly, hyena females are the larger, stronger, more muscular gender, relegating the males to taking care of the children.

Homosexuality has in fact been seen in the wild, scientists playing with mice hormones have induced it as well.  It is relatively safe to say that homosexuality is strongly linked to biology, and less so to nurture.

However, what has been interesting to note, is that over the course of humanity, homosexuality has, by and large, in most cultures, been viewed as socially unacceptable.  Now whether or not the social evolution of such an idea is the result of an evolutionary necessity is up for debate.

However, the result is quite interesting.  Individuals have been forced to suppress their biological desires, often putting on the guise of a "normal" individual to be socially acceptable, taking up members of the opposite gender as partners, having children, raising families.

The fact that they were socially required to raise a family means that their genes were passed on to another generation.

As it stands, there is a direct correlation between wealth and progeny.  As countries get more affluent, the individuals do a cost/benefit analysis on children.  For poor countries each additional child is viewed as potential "income" in the form of physical labor that can be tapped.  For rich countries each additional child is viewed as an "expense" in the form of educating and feeding that child.  As a result, people in richer countries start having fewer and fewer children and having a child is not viewed nearly as important as poorer countries despite our biological imperative to raise children.

Now combine this trend with the acceptance of homosexuality and you have a interesting situation.

As the acceptance level of homosexuality increases, individuals are less likely to suppress their biological desires and instead engage openly in their desired activities.

This means that you will have fewer people marrying the opposite gender for the sake of remaining socially acceptable and instead coupling with members of the same sex.

Biologically, this is a problem for an individual.  A couple that is comprised of the same gender will be biologically incapable of creating offspring.

There are alternatives to this problem, in vitro-fertilization, or the individual might decide to copulate with a member of the opposite sex for the sole purpose of creating an offspring, but both of these add additional barriers to having children in a society that is already decreasing the rate of offspring creation due to the opportunity costs involved.

The end result would be that since society is no longer forcing these individuals to put up a guise and copulate with members of the opposite sex there would be a drop off in the number of children born to homosexual individuals, the only thing at that point that would continue to drive the creation of progeny would be the innate human biological drive for it, which given alternatives, turns out to be a weighted cost/benefit analysis.

If this is the case, then fewer homosexuals would be having children compared to the average household.  This means that their genetic sequences would not be passed on, and that we'd likely have a drop off in the number of homosexuals born during any given generation, and they would be "selected" out of the population.

Does this then mean that by suppressing homosexuality humanity has actually encouraged and allowed this particular genetic propensity to flourish?

The easiest way to try to figure out if this is a possibility would be to gauge the frequency that homosexual individuals in other species appear relative to the population.  If humans are significantly and statistically higher than all other animals, then we have, through some non-biological method, increased the survivability of this particular trait, or some non-biological stimulus has increased frequency of the trait appearing.

So in like manner then, does society becoming more accepting of homosexuality actually decrease the number of homosexuals?

I just found the thought of this possibility kinda interesting.