Maybe. That sort of argument seems to reflect a very JPII understanding of sexuality. It seems to suggest that the division of the sex act and the loss of reason sets up a sort of continuum where, for example, promiscuous heterosexual sex for mere pleasure, is sort of in the same path as gay sex.
That just doesn’t ring true.
That’s sort of like saying eating too much at a banquet is the same “type” of thing as eating excrement. Yes, both are wrong. And both involve “eating”. But one is done by a person who has fleshly desires, but desires which are also normal and wholesome if exercised in the right context. But gay sex and the eating of excrement are done only by mentally ill people who are deeply depraved (and also sinners).
They both deny that sex has an intrinsic structure which is meaningful and providential.They both assume that you can restructure what sexual intercourse IS to fit your preferences.
It's a safe bet that the vast majority of heterosexuals who approve of homosexual sex, also approve of contraceptive sex.
It's also a safe bet that the vast majority of heterosexuals who don't approve of contraceptive intercourse, also don't approve of homosexual intercourse.