It doesn't. You're quoting Dr. Byrd, "a doctor who has written about the issue on the website of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality."
Which is to say, Dr. Byrd has an agenda, and most likely an income, that depends on his saying such things. I tend to distrust such fellows.
The APA's statement says nothing more or less than that the underlying causes are complicated. They most certainly do not rule out a genetic component; they do say that it's a complicated issue.
Imho, it’s a distinction without a difference:
“What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”
What is very clear is that APA is very significantly backing down from an aggressive position.
Byrd’s argument is not that that APA has released a statement to the fact that there is no gene but rather that the APA by it’s own actions is admitting that despite aggressive research (or I should just say “searching for”), NO GENE COULD BE FOUND.
The underlying premise is that APA would not have abandoned a 10 year old position statement after such heavy investment by vested interests unless theresults had been dissppointing at best and counter-conclusive at worst.
Hence, per Byrd, the APA by their ACTIONS have admitted that there is no gay gene. That may be a stretch but at a minimum, by their actions they have admitted there previous position statement was over the top and unsupported by any scientific evidence.
I don't know a single credible scientist who disagrees. It is indeed complicated.
They most certainly do not rule out a genetic component
I don't know a single credible scientist who disagrees. But what is meant by component? By component, scientists mean linkages and associations. What confuses people is how little linkages and associations play into the mix.
Credible scientists say environment is a key factor in how same-sex attractions originate.
A summary of the scientific evidence is that homosexuals are not born with their same-sex attraction, but neither the vast majority choose their same-sex attraction.
What does this mean? That is, if same-sex attraction isn't genetic nor chosen, from where does it originate? To repeat what the APA has said, it's complicated.
To believe a gay gene exists that causes same-sex attraction is to believe something based on nothing.
Click here for the APA's updated pamphlet.