My argument wasn’t intended to prove or disprove the assertion that homosexuality is inborn. It was to point out the fallacy in your line of reasoning that put the same burden on those who would argue that it’s NOT that you would assign to those who assert it IS.
Why should there be a different burden for opposing sides? I don't know, or care, if it is hard-wired. All I'm saying is that if one side wants to be believed, that side needs to present the proof. You confused the issue by the assumption that because the homosexuals claim that they think it's hard-wired, that we need to believe them because we can't prove it's not. I say that it is what it is and maybe someday science will be able to tell us what it is. I know some who appear to be hard-wired and some who are merely hedonists who go after any sort of pleasure they can get. If it matters to you, I say go ahead and try to enlist someone with the background and abilities to try to prove your side of the argument - it's a scientific matter and you cannot compare it to a legal matter where the prosecution has to do all the proving. It shouldn't even be a one side against the other issue - it should be a scientific interest just for the knowledge.