Queer theory obliterates the idea of good and bad sex and what should and should not be deemed deviant -and this is one of the reasons why queer theory is a steaming pile of horseshit. I have been scolded on here in the past for objecting to the term queer, but given that it's both historically offensive AND now applied so broadly as to be meaningless, I struggle to care too much about that.
From his list, I wanted to think about whether these things could ever be considered acceptable in society.
public nudity - nothing particularly wrong with this, different cultures have different standards for which body parts should & shouldn't be covered, so yes, I can see that laws could easily change here. For example, the whole saga of the Naked Rambler was pretty shameful.
urinating in public - I live in France where this is practically mandatory and while I dislike it, as I dislike spitting in the street, I can see that an argument can be made that it's relatively harmless. Again, as this varies across culture and time, it's possible that laws could be changed.
public masturbation - now we start to get problematic. When a man wanked on my back on the Tube, he can get to fuck if he thinks the laws should be changed so he has the right to do that. Wanking is not the same as peeing, it is not an inevitable biological function. It's a choice. This doesn't vary across cultures or times, and no country could reasonably propose a law accommodating this.
peeping - as above. No consent. Disproportionately affects women. No country could reasonably propose a law accommodating this.
photographing or videotaping without consent - as above. Though it very much depends what is being photographed. I assume he's angling at defending things like upskirt shots, in which case, nope.
consensual sex with a 17-year-old - this isn't a crime in many countries, so yes, this could reasonably change. I think the most progressive approach is to look at a defined age of consent (and 16 seems pretty reasonable), with a sliding scale of seriousness depending on age disparity.
sexting - complicated - this is too broad a category. Could be entirely consensual, or could be unsolicited dick pics, so hard to say.
downloading unlawful pornography - again a very broad category. Could be anything up to and including images of child sex abuse, filmed rapes, acts of severe bodily harm. If anything, laws need to be strengthened around this, not rolled back, and it deeply concerns me that he would be defending anyone for whom a diet of "normal" porn is insufficient.
So it's a total grab bag of stuff that he's lumping together. Then he says " A forceful, coercive, violent sexual assault is not to be tolerated" - which lets slip more than I think he realises. He's talking about "real" rape there, and the very second someone does that, my antenna go up, because it is inevitably followed by rape apologism.
Anyway, none of this is remotely comparable to gay rights. For a start, if he thinks same sex attraction and sex have always been stigmatised and criminalised, he's wrong, and he hasn't read his history books.