It may seem an odd or off-putting question; it may strike you as offensive. That's not my purpose. Pressing some boundaries in the interests of 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. I hold with the spreading consensus that we do not choose sexual orientation; I find it a somewhat surprising and good reflection of Justice that Western European and American majorities seem to get it.
Still, I've a question:
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 a mandate for a just society?
If we rely wholly on the born-this-way argument for the recognition of marriage rights, if we primarily anchor our demand for equality in that argument, are we not, at least in a small way, suggesting that our LGBT friends and relatives aren't fully deserving of equality under law 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 you and to the law whether or not our LGBT colleagues, companions, and relatives ever chose to be who they are.