[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?**

[philly-d-kidder]

Homosexuality is a fruit of Oral Contraception turning Marital Sex into Recreational sex and self satisfaction helping to Break Down the Concept of Marriage with the Ultimate form of recreational sex Homosexuality.!!Then Of Course total selfishness Homosexual Marriage!

That was how the Natural order is out of Kilter today!

[CautiouslyHopeful]

Yes, but his arguments above only address contraception as a deliberate attempt to avoid conception. They do not themselves address sexual activity that is only incidentally non-procreative. The argument that acceptance of contraception is a problem because it will lead to acceptance of homosexual activity is only relevant if we assume there is something wrong with homosexual activity. But his arguments do not show that there is something wrong with homosexual activity or anything else (so-called premarital sex, bestiality, pedophilia, incest, promiscuity and all that stuff), only that there is something wrong with contraception because is deliberately "frustrates the sexual act."

And for that matter, the "sexual act," in this case, seems to be defined as vaginal sex, specifically. For instance, his argument that extra-marital sex, with or without procreation, leads to unwanted pregnancies only makes sense when that extra-marital sex is vaginal penetration. What if it's mutual masturbation? Then there's no risk of unwanted pregnancy and no need for contraception.

And if one defines "sex" to mean "coitus," one could argue that such things as mutual masturbation, oral sex, etc, don't constitute "real sex" but only erotic play. For example, a romantic kiss is erotic, but no one seriously argues that it has to end with "openness to procreation" (i.e. the depositing of semen in the uterus) because it's not "real sex." Theoretically, you could allow most of these things simply by narrowing the definition of "sex".

Of course, the real issues with discarding the old procreative teleology of sex in favor of one that allows pleasure and intimacy without deliberate "procreative finality" are the societal effects it has. By only allowing most erotic activity to take place within marriage and open to procreation, society is able to motivate people to form stable marriages and bear children. This is particularly important now that these things are no longer and economic asset, and people no longer live in extended families. Without these restrictions, how else do you motivate people to marry and procreate?