It's actually quite an even-sided article in some ways, presenting both elements, although it's structured in a way to tacitly endorse asexuality as an orientation, so people opposed to that idea may find it less so.
I like the point raised by David Jay at the end of the article, which is what I was thinking throughout. There seems to be an underlying assumption in several of the interviewees' views that if by any means possible somebody can be made to enjoy sex, then they should be -- that by allowing people comfort in their lack of interest in sex, a great disservice is being done to those who might be 'fixable'. I'm not sure why enjoying sex, if the people have happy and fulfilled life without it, is such a focal element. If someone really feels the lack of it in their life and is 'resigned to their fate', then I can see the argument, but if they're living a totally happy life that happens to not have sex in it, then what needs to be 'fixed' there?
(Note: Disclosure of perspective -- I do engage in and enjoy sex, and during the times in my life in which my sex drive was nonexistent or in which I was actively avoiding sex, I did feel that it was something I wanted to address.)