This is the right approach within the current psychological, academic context: more and better research and interpretation than before (which more and better studies, by the way, Mark Regnerus also correctly called for and right in his very research paper).
...some folks with a vested interest can (and will) dismiss the study and rely instead on research that supports their own biases (research with much smaller and nearly hand-picked/optimal samples, unrepresentative samples, and so on). Others will make too much of the study. Neither response is particularly wise in my view. Rather, we do well to understand this study within the scope of its strengths and its limitations. We do well to conduct additional, well-designed studies that capitalize on the strengths of this study while addressing the study's limitations–all of this is toward the end that such studies inform how we respond in the best interest of families and children, as well as the nature and scope of social support.
This is also NARTH's official response to those who stand opposed to SOCE (Sexual-Orientation-Change Efforts). NARTH has correctly published that the discipline needs more and better studies, which the APA (American Psychological Association) has been loathe to undertake for fear of homosexuality turning up as problematic, to say the least.
The APA has been nothing short of "politically correct" rather than scientific (versus NARTH's own positions that are scientifically based, as much as that's possible within any social science versus what's termed the pure sciences/hard sciences, where even still, data remains subject to misinterpretation and poor methodological collection, etc.).
Personally, I don't need any "scientific" study to tell me that faithful, monogamous, heterosexual, non-abusive (including no sexual contact with the children) parenting is best. For those who stand by such studies, let's have them without the homosexually co-opted APA standing in the political way (political in the worse sense).