for the homosexuals.

So murder might be a better example. You get a different sentence based on motivation and whether it was preplanned (preferential) or a crime of passion (circumstantial). In the court of law, there is solid evidence on what happened and what led up to it. Usually a full jury decides on the verdict.
Now take bi/homosexuality allegation. Let's assume you're not bisexual or homosexual with an encounter with the same sex. A court would look at what happened (sex) and what led up to it. The problem is the only person who can testify is the alleged person, plus anyone else was present who may be willing to corroborate with him. A jury has to decide on a bunch of statements about a "chance encounter" and a solid fact that the person has had sex with someone their own sex. Is it rational to trust the statements of friends and acquaintances of the alleged and say that he or she isn't a bi/homosexual? The issue becomes a matter of "do you trust the person" and a jury (us) wouldn't have an opinion either way, leaving us with the facts. Now is it fair for a bystander to claim he or she is a bi/homosexual?

Are you trying to make some sort of point? If so, you're failing because nothing you've said has any relation to anything being discussed and you've just randomly created an analogy that has no context to the current conversation.
A bystander does not determine your sexuality. It's something intrinsic to you. No one can else has any way to measure what you feel. All that can be said by an observer is whether or not you've been seen engaging in hetero or homo sexual intercourse and that is not indicative of preference, merely of observed circumstance.

If you want to discuss whatever point you're trying to make, create your own thread for it.