So, I can judge by this comment that you, at most, skimmed parts of my previous response?

Again, 34-54% of variance explained does not = "little to no." You mention twin studies: While it is true that there is not a 100% correlation in sexual orientation, this again leaves out issues related to chorionicity and amnioicity (different placentas and different amniotic sacs). And, most studies show higher overlap in sexual orientation. For example, Bailey & Pillard (1991) found a 52% overlap in sexual orientation. Genetics are complicated. They aren't a simple blue print. There are a multitude of factors that influence genetic expression, including epigenetic factors.

Sexual orientation is not a "general personality trait."

Human bodies are "designed?" Tell that to doctors and scientists. Yes, human bodies are "designed" for heterosexual sex in terms of procreation, that still does not mean homosexuality is "abnormal." For example, anal sex stimulates nerves in the anus and rectum that provide pleasure, and the prostate stimulation involved results in pleasurable feelings, and often increases the intensity and duration of an orgasm. If we weren't "designed" for homosexuality, then I'd say that was a hell of an oversight. Further, homosexuality has been observed in hundreds of animals in nature. So again...I'm not finding much support for your "abnormal" claim.

Again, to understand human sexuality requires the ability for nuanced thinking. Simply being black and white means you are not going to understand it. There are multiple studies (the APA did quite a large review in 2009 I believe) documenting the ineffectiveness of efforts to change someone's sexual orientation. This does not mean that a person cannot pretend they are of a different orientation (such as those who are in the closet), nor does it preclude a person from later discovering their bisexuality, for example. Sexual identity is a more complex construct than simply behavior.