I'm not sure this article captures the terrain here quite right. It's not really about norms as such. It's great to have norms against, say, racism. As to sex specifically, it's great to have norms in favor of robust standards about consent and preventing sex-based harms. And while I'm not much of a queer radical these days, I don't get the sense that today's queer radicals disagree, notwithstanding what Gayle Rubin may have written forty years ago. Queer radicals today often have robust and sometimes fairly moralistic accounts of proper behavior around sex! They just don't usually focus on monogamy.

The problem is a little different. We have a set of traditional norms around sex (in both senses of the term) that have been wrapped up historically in the oppression of women and LGBT people. And the institutional defenders of traditional sexual morality have been active participants in that oppression. And the question is: what do you do with that. And you might say, OK, they got gay issues wrong (and trans issues, and women's issues), but there's a lot else that's good and wise in this tradition. OR you might say, there is something foundationally rotten here and we need to build something better. In other words: the argument, read most charitably, is a lot narrower and more contextually situated--that LGBT experience with traditional sexual morality has something to teach us, not about the need to deconstruct every norm into relativism or libertinism, but about building a better ethic around sexuality and gender that better respects the dignity and better serves the well-being of every person.