But the basic thrust of this article seems to be that there is no "nature" aspect to homosexuality, which is pure crap. (If there were no "nature" aspect, homosexuality would not occur in nature -- but it does.)
Homosexuality doesn't have to be "genetic" for somebody to be "born that way." Just as various other personality traits seem to be innate, a tendency to same-sex attraction can be innate. This doesn't make it "genetic," any more than your or my personality traits are "genetic."
That doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is disordered, nor does it alter the fact that environment can be and often is a major factor in causing people to act on an existing pre-disposition.
The article summarizes many of the latest findings, and those findings are very interesting because they clash with the poltical agenda of homosexuals and their sympathizers.
The homosexuality in nature argument has been debunked many times. Animals resort to it briefly when females aren't around but animals are quick to return to normal sexual activity when females are around. Besides that, should man imitate animals?
Anybody who uses your argument is not very well informed on the subject.
I suggest you start reading with the link in post 14 and then move on to the link in post 6.