While I agree that the author was off base when he talked about the morality of homosexuality, I don't think is overall analysis of contemporary performance art is wrong.

Obviously his moral perspective comes from a conservative Christian worldview, that sex is something sacred and homosexual is something morally objectionable. A liberal would take offense to that view, but from the authors perspective its totally valid. Arguing about whose view is right and whose is wrong doesn't get us anywhere. Ultimately I think his line about putting aside the morality of homosexuality was directed towards readers who would stop reading as soon as they read the word homosexual.

Performance art has just dropped into this realm of trivializing actions that would otherwise mean something. A piece like Shoot allows rich white benefactors to look at the act of getting shot as something entertaining. Hardly the thought of someone getting shot on the wrong side of town. "Wow what an experience."

The author might be off with the moral argument, but so much of performance art trivializes intimate acts (that in many cases would be intimate) by doing things just because they are interesting. If there wasn't this degree of intimacy in the act of losing his virginity Clayton Pettet would have never done the piece.