A Plebiscite on Same Sex Marriage?

Is whether or not to legalise same sex marriage, or indeed marriage between any two non-heterosexual consenting adults, the business of heterosexual adults at all?

In thought-experiments, let us examine some different lines of reasoning:

If homosexuality (and other forms of non-heterosexuality) are not chosen forms of sexuality, but rather as solely caused and determined by a singular identified genetic difference, then would it not make sense to ask solely non-heterosexual adults whether they would want the right to consecrate non-heterosexual unions in marriage?[1] Surely this is more just/fair than the heterosexual majority having their say (on the rights of adults with different sexual orientations), which is encroaching on the rights and liberty of others (non-heterosexual adults) to choose to marry.

If homosexuality (and other forms of non-heterosexuality) are purely choices, does then change things? No, it would still make sense to ask the people to choosing to identify as homosexual (or non-heterosexual) orientation, whether they would want the right to marry, as it still exclusively affects their liberties.

Having explored the above thought-experiment scenarios, let us go straight to the (humane) synthesis: no matter whether homosexuality or other forms of non-hetero-sexuality is a choice or not (or somewhere in between – e.g. non-heterosexual tendencies), there should be the inalienable right of any two adults to marry. Why? Because it does not offend the (do no) harm principle.

In fact, there is a good case to be made that not granting or extending the right to marry as the right of any two mutually consenting adults (of any sex or gender), does, in fact, offend the (do no) harm principle!

Whether it is a choice or not or somewhere in between (for some or all), is irrelevant!

So the political stance should be not “let’s have a plebiscite” (appealing to insidious ‘paternal’-populism), but rather that the right to marry between any two consenting adults, be enshrined inalienably in law (in Parliament/Legislatures (and thus (in) their jurisdictions)) without the legal discrimination that comes with excluding non-hetero couples from their liberty/right of choice to state-sanctify their union in marriage.

[1] Here I am meaning state-sanctified marital unions (between two consenting adults), naturally.