[CautiouslyHopeful]

These arguments make a certain amount of sense when specifically to artificial contraception, which is used deliberately for the purpose of preventing conception. But they don't really address the idea that all non-procreative erotic acts are wrong, regardless of their purpose.

For example, if a person engages in erotic activity with a person of the same sex, they usually aren't doing it deliberately to avoid conception that would otherwise be a possibility, but simply because they are attracted to that person and want to be intimate with him/her. The fact that non-procreative nature of the activity is incidental. Likewise heterosexual who engage in non-procreative erotic activity (oral sex, etc.) simply for the sake of pleasure and variety. The article doesn't really address this; it only go so far as to argue that it's wrong to use artifial means to avoid the procreative potential inherit in vaginal sex.

[Salvation]

Part 1 addressed it>

**What about homosexuality? Our culture is impotent to resist the “gay agenda” because we have already accepted its basic premise with contraception — the reduction of sex to the exchange of pleasure. When openness to life is no longer an intrinsic part of the sexual equation, why does sexual behavior have to be with the opposite sex?**