Are you asserting that we know enough about God's creation that we could absolutely prove it if homosexuality was hard-wired for some?
The court of law statement tells me you are grasping at straws and came up with an irrelevant one for the topic. Your other argument is only valid if we do, indeed, have the knowledge required to be able to actually prove it one way or the other - it remains a scientific, rather than a legal meme.
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.