Man, this thread kind of blew up.
Imagine that.
Anyway, I might as well throw in my $0.02 worth...
First, on the whole 'homosexuality is/isn't a choice' thing...
It either absolutely is a choice or it most likely is not be a choice, depending upon the perspective - and it is both at the same time. There is a difference between the terms or concepts of "sexual preference", "sexual lifestyle", and "sexual attraction" - all of which are used to either describe and/or define homosexuality. Even though they are often used interchangeably they are actually very different things. A person's "sexual preference" and "sexual lifestyle" are most certainly that person's choices. A person's "sexual attraction", however, is most likely not a choice - the caveat there being that it is possible for a person's sexual attraction to be altered or at least influenced over time, though to what extent is both debatable and unknown.
- A man could be naturally, subconsciously, sexually attracted to only women while choosing to only engage in sexual activity with women in monogamous relationships for his entire life. His sexual attraction is heterosexual, his sexual preference is heterosexual, and his sexual lifestyle is heterosexual monogamy.
- A man could be naturally, subconsciously, sexually attracted to only men while choosing to only engage in sexual activity with men in monogamous relationships for his entire life. His sexual attraction is homosexual, his sexual preference is homosexual, and his sexual lifestyle is homosexual monogamy.
- A man could be naturally, subconsciously, sexually attracted to both women and men while choosing to only engage in sexual activity with women in polygamous relationships for his entire life. His sexual attraction is bisexual, his sexual preference is heterosexual, and his sexual lifestyle is heterosexual polygamy.
- A man could be naturally, subconsciously, sexually attracted to only women while choosing to only engage in sexual activity with men either within or without of relationships for his entire life. His sexual attraction is heterosexual, his sexual preference is homosexual, and his sexual lifestyle is homosexual polyamory.
- A man could be naturally, subconsciously, sexually attracted to only women while choosing to not engage in sexual activity with anyone for his entire life. His sexual attraction is heterosexual, his sexual preference is asexual or celibate, and his sexual lifestyle is celibate.
- A man could have no discernible natural, subconscious, sexual attraction to anyone while choosing to only engage in sexual activity with women in monogamous relationships for his entire life. His sexual attraction is asexual (or non-present), his sexual preference is heterosexual, and his sexual lifestyle is heterosexual monogamy.
You can change these around to your heart's content - switching between men and women; heterosexual, homosexual, etc.; monogamy, polygamy, etc. - and the end result is always the same: a person may not be able to control their natural, sexual attraction (whether or not they have one) but they can always control or choose whatever they want for both their sexual preference and sexual lifestyle.
There is a genetic component to sexual attraction and it's not really the same as a predilection for the taste of chocolate or the color red, for example; it's more related to a compulsive instinct. However, it's certainly not the be-all-end-all when it comes to a person's sexual preference. In fact, even the so-called "gay gene" (which is a misnomer) isn't the be-all-end-all when it comes to a person's natural, sexual attraction. In several of the studies searching for the "gay gene", the markers identified as being indicative of a genetic homosexual attraction were not always present in homosexual subjects (and by a significant amount) and were also found in a significant number of heterosexual subjects who showed no subconscious homosexual attraction in testing (i.e., they weren't just "lying"). So, while we know that genetics can contribute to a person's sexual attraction, there are other factors at play there as well.
Second, on the 'homosexuality versus pedophilia versus beastiality' thing...
I can't really speak to anything regarding beastiality, so I'll leave that one out. And I'll replace it with alcoholism.
While there are certainly big ethical, civil, and societal differences between those three things they are actually very related. There have been a few studies into genetic or hereditary links with regard to pedophilia and a plethora with alcoholism. If you look at those studies, you'll notice a few things. One, there does appear to be a genetic factor (a "pedophile gene" or an "alcoholic gene", if you will) that seems to be present in most test subjects with these dispositions - though most of the pedophilia research has focused on neurological factors and references to genetic factors usually use phrases like the research "suggests" or "shows probability" of a genetic factor. Also, subconscious testing - such as implicit association testing - of many of these subjects often resulted in raised serotonin levels and sexual arousal (the latter being interesting really just for the alcoholism part). Finally, many of the cases showed that subjects with these dispositions (or conditions) showed traits of compulsion regarding them.
How does this relate to homosexuality?
Well, the studies into genetic factors for homosexuality - as mentioned above - have shown that there is a genetic factor, that subconscious testing with homosexual subjects often resulted in raised serotonin levels and sexual arousal, and that homosexual subjects showed traits of compulsion regarding them. And there are other, more technical similarities between all three genetic factors.
So, while there are obviously big differences between homosexuality and pedophilia as well as alcoholism, from a genetic or neurological perspective they're actually quite similar.
Third, on the whole 'gay marriage' thing...
For the love of sanity, why can't we just do away with marriage entirely from a civil, legal, governmental perspective? Let's let marriage - the act, the definition, and the very existence - be determined only by the individuals directly involved in a particular marriage and their respective familial and religious factors (if there are any) and keep the Federal, State, and Local Governments out of it completely. Let's have the Government(s) concern themselves only with civil unions, which would be a binding legal contract for related tax and legal purposes, that can be enacted between any number of individuals making up a "household" with only whatever terms and conditions are applicable to those purposes - regardless of whether or not there is any sexual or familial relationship between the individuals. That way the Government isn't telling anyone who they can or can't "marry", doesn't have anything to do with marriage or separation or divorce, and is only concerned with the creation and dissolution of "household entities".
Finally, on the actual thread topic...
Mozilla is a private company and they are entitled to hire and fire anyone they choose or do not choose for any reason that is not a direct violation of that individual's constitutionally granted civil rights. While the CEO certainly has a right to voice his opinion, he does not have the right to avoid any consequences that follow the voicing of that opinion. And, while Mozilla is within their rights to fire him for that, he is certainly within his rights to be angry (if he is) for having been fired for simply voicing his opinion - just like anyone else has the right to be angry for being fired simply for voicing their opinion, be it for or against any social or political or even moral stance. Or even regarding your boss' bad toupee.
He (or the proverbial 'they') is still fired, the company goes on with its business (as best as it can without him), and the world keeps turning. Beyond that, there really isn't anything to this particular "issue".