I did not. But evidently I did not make myself clear. Let me try again.
I did NOT say that every form of sex that isn't for procreation is a perversion. This is what I did say:
"They [the perversions] are turned away from what Biblical revelation holds to be good: natural procreative sex."
There's a difference between simply enjoying sex that doesn't happen to be effectively procreative (like having intercourse when your wife is pregnant or post-menopausal) and deforming sex by turning it away from procreation.
The very design of female sexuality is that it is only intermittently fertile. (Unlike males, who are normally always fertile.) So simply having sex when it's quite clear that it can't be fertile --- but enjoying it for its good pleasurable and bonding power --- is great. That's actually part of the design. The fact that pleasure is much more continuously available than fertility is a built-in feature.
For which I say, "Yay."
Contrast that with actually sabotaging natural fertility: like spermicides or toxic jams and jellies or barriers or deliberately wreckovating your reproductive system via drugs or surgery.
That's the difference I was trying to get at.
It's a case of accepting that (occasional) fertility isn't a glitch. It's a feature.
Accepting God's design of the body is God-pleasing and spouse-pleasing in marriage. It shows respect for the design.
Dismantling God's design by drugs-devices-destructive surgery, treating a wife's body as if her fertility were a big mistake that needs to be cut out or chemically suppressed or "fixed": that's wrong.
It's treating a gift as a design flaw.
It's akin to the trannies treating their whole body as a design flaw. It's rejecting the embodied design of your sexuality. Actively trying to sabotage a natural function sets people against their own bodies.
Accepting sex as what it actually is, is good.
It is your leap of illogic that is false.
You use perjorative words like “Dismantling” to describe choosing not to get pregnant now.
It is not found in Scripture.