Marriage is sacred. YOUR characterization of preventing every pregnancy is not in Scripture... or you would have posted it.
He never said OK to contraceptive sex, intentionally sterilized sex, queered sex, or any other basic re-invention of a different kind of sex.
He never forbade it, taught on it, commanded it. Jews have a view that couples are to replenish the earth and make a personal decision as to how many is enough. God gave us principles and brains.
In all this vast panorama of teachings, He NEVER said you can violate His design by deliberately suppressing or impairing the marital union's procreative power.
Nor did he forbid it. And again, it is your pejorative language "violate".
He did not show you ONE procreative-suppressed act that was blessed, and He DID show you one procreative-suppressed act that was cursed.
God condemned Onan for violating the sacred covenant with Israel. It is not normative for those not under the covenant.He never condemns couples who do not have limitless children, nor does He say to time intercourse to avoid pregnancy.
Your posts are playing fast and loose with the evidence - posting just one side.
He never said that 1900 years later He would authorize people to split off the procreative from the unitive, so that the procreative power of the act could be temporarily or permanently rejected.
He never said it 1900 years ago either. He never said 5,000 years ago. He never said it. The reason is that this is your construct to attempt an argument in the vacuum of Scripture from God. You are attempting to tell God what He missed saying.
Really weak argument that only convinces those who have already pre-decided their view.
Repeating it does nothing to enhance your argument.
Which I take it to mean you have nothing from Scripture.
I think at this point, you have provided no Scripture and lots of conjecture and assertion.
If you want to believe this personally, great.
It must rejected as a moral and universal principle for Christians and Jews.
Unless you actually consider that, and how brilliant and wholesome for humans and God-designed that is ---you're not going to "get" that it's wrong to violate it.
It's related to the whole ensemble of medical ethics, which is rooted in an reverent acknowledgement of how human structures are designed and how they operate. Once you see that, you see why acting directly and deliberately against natural function is wrong.
The prime purpose of medical ethics is work for, not against, natural function. To repair it if it's broken, to restore it if it's lost, not to attack it if it's working as it should. The essential starting point is "First, do no harm."
That's why deliberate, directly intentional maiming in contrary to medical ethics. You don't deliberately impair the hearing of the ears, the seeing of the eyes, etc.
There's a condition called "body dysmorphic disorder" where the sufferers really think their healthy bodies are wrong.
They feel they ought to be one-legged when they have two good legs. Or perhaps they feel they ought to have no visible ears, because external ear structures are not to their liking. Or again, they want to have their good eyes blinded because their ideal is sightlessness. Any doctor that deliberately destroyed their good organs or limbs, though, would be acting unethically.
This ethic gets trashed at its foundation when, for instance, a doctor will "on demand" destroy the sexual structures of persons who feel their bodily sex is wrong and they want to be transsexual.
This is still unethical, because the mandate of "healthy function" is violated by acting directly against normal sexual capacities via hormones, devices or surgery.
This is directly analogous to impairing fertility by drugs, devices or surgery. It's acting directly against normal sexual function.
The Bible doesn't explicitly say, in so many words, that transsexual alterations of the body are wrong, but Christian ethicists say it violates the integrity of the person's healthy design.
To take another example, the Bible doesn't explicitly say that a doctor should preserve, and not destroy, the sight of the eyes, but no ethical Christian doctor would blind a slighted person because he prefers to be sightless likethe blind poet Homer.
This is a Christian ethic, but it is not only a Christian ethic. Hippocrates was against impairing natural function. Any person could figure that out via Natural Law: a law of God written in the heart, as St. Paul says.
Intentionally impairing fertility is like that.
But why do people accept that? Because people have been so successfully propagandized by the Sexual Revolution that they think that women's bodies, as designed, are wrong. Or that the way sexual intercourse works, as designed, is wrong.
And now the trannies are telling us that everybody's sexuality, their bodily structure and function, is malleable at will. How can you oppose that?
Or possibly you won't. It's not in the Bible.