educto ad absurdium. I'd say that when a person's proclivity for tomatoes has an important impact on social policies, then we can put it in the same category.
As ET Warrior said, it's not that it has an important impact. It's that it shouldn't
have an important impact.
I could, in fact, just as easily be opposed to genetically manipulating tomatoes on the grounds that people choose
to like tomatoes, rather than being born with a "tomato gene". It'd be absurd, of course, but technically I could
But it begs a question: Is it of any importance how
it comes there are homosexuals? Whether or not they are born that way or become that way or choose it is irrelevant, as the end result remains: homosexuals and homosexual
?). Just like there are people who fall in love with persons of other skin colours, other economic classes, or, goodness forbid
, other religions.
Homosexuals are part of life. They don't do more harm than heterosexuals, they aren't going to go away any time soon, and they deserve the same rights we "normal" people do (in fact, I'm wondering what's taking Spider so long - he's way overdue with his rant about how marriage is an obsolete institution and how homosexuality and sports bag rape are non-issues