It may seem an odd or even an off-putting question; it could strike some as offensive. That's not my purpose. Pressing some boundaries in the interests of discussion and justice is what I'm after.
Much of the growing support for Marriage Equality rests on an increasingly-held assumption among those in the West that we are as to gender-identity born as we find and largely acknowledge ourselves to be by our late pre-teens or earlier (and, sometimes, later). We say that we are innately gay, straight, or bi-sexual. As I've made clear, I hold with the spreading consensus that we do not choose sexual orientation. It has been a somewhat surprising and good development that Western European and American majorities are more and more comfortable with this understanding and with Marriage Equality.
My question is this:
Were there still, today, among the majority here and in Western Europe, a more than simply lingering conviction that sexual orientation is chosen, wouldn't marriage equality remain one mandate for a just society? We don't tend to, for example, question bi-sexuals' right to marriage when there seems, at least, to be a measure of choice in bi-sexual persons' decisions about whom to marry.
If we rely too strongly on the born-this-way argument for the recognition of marriage rights, if we too strongly or primarily anchor our demand for Equality in that argument, are we not, at least in a small way, suggesting that our gay and bi-sexual friends aren't fully deserving of Equality simply by virtue of the fact that they are, as we are, adult citizens?
I'm for Equality Under Law. It's irrelevant to me and should be to the law whether or not my gay and bi-sexual colleagues in this justice movement, my gay companions and relatives (and yours) ever chose to be who they are.