A law is passed criminalising all instances of heterosexual sex. This 'essentially' criminalises you being born hetrosexual. Perhaps this is unclear to those who have strange background assumptions about what it's like to be human.I disagree with Hyper, but here's the funny thing about the comment. What is this 'what it's like to be human' talk? I'm the guy who believes in natures and essences, and who thinks such talk actually makes sense. Hyper, to my knowledge, isn't - he rejects such talk. And hey, let him reject it.
But then where comes this talk about 'making it a crime to be born X' coming from? We're just barring an act. Humans have no natures. Sure, they may have inclinations - some of them good, some of them bad. Humans also have capacities and urges to murder, to cheat, to lie - a whole lot of things we bar and ban. No one talks about making it illegal to fulfill human urges then. No one talks about the strange background assumptions about what it's like to be human.
Worse, he seems to define 'being homosexual' by the sex acts. Is that really all there is to homosexuality? Now, I know that's all there is to objections to homosexual acts - it comes down to the sex, not the love.
Edit: And I want to emphasize, I think the law in question - India's criminalization of, among other things, same-sex acts - is a bad law. It's impractical and unwise to try and get the law into the act of covering such acts between anyone, at least in this sense. In the sense of marriage requirements, I obviously think there's a different standard in play - at least for the right societies.