The title of the published paper says a lot. "Multiple Aspects of Sexual Orientation: Prevalence and Sociodemographic Correlates in a New Zealand National Survey ". The key phrase being "Sociodemographic Correlates in a New Zealand National Survey". The author of the paper took a New Zealand study of sexuality and extrapolated conclusions. May sound bigoted but I have seen enough of these studies over the last 45 years to suspect they have an ulterior motive and that they sometimes "shop around" for datum that correlate their desired result. I simply don't trust them anymore. Kinsey was the first I read and look at how screwed up his results were.
My criticism of the conclusions were in comparison to my real-world experiences which significantly differ with their extrapolated results. I am not pro-homosexual or anti-homosexual. I don't have a dog in the fight until my rights are tread upon.
Have you any factual foundation for your supposition that Wells cherry-picked data or illegitimately extrapolated conclusions?
Kinsey's methods were scientifically disgraceful and have been thoroughly debunked. I'm sure you've seen Judith Reisman's takedown of his methodology.
From what's in this article, Wells is just noting statistically significant correlations from a survey of 13,000 people whose participation was not influenced by suggestion, recruitment, reward, or pressure on Wells' part. Absent evidence that this researcher, Elisabeth Wells, is a Kinseyesque fraud, your conclusion lacks much persuasive force.