There are a number of fallacies in this post. I understand your questioning - it's something I went through. But (I firmly believe) you are making some incorrect assuptions.
Aerometis said:
But what if a couple already has children and doesn't want or can't afford more? I think it's unreasonable to assume that God wouldn't want the couple to have sexual relations as this is an important part of a relationship. Whether the Church wants to admit it or not, sex is a normal part of life. If it is done within the sanctity of marriage there is nothing wrong with sex.
If sex is treated as the sacred thing it is within the sanctity of marriage, then there is nothing wrong with it. But to say, "It happened within marriage, therefore it is OK" is wrong. To give an obvious example, domestic rape occurs within marriage but is clearly wrong; both couples must consent even within marriage. And there are many other, less drastic examples. Sex must still be treated with respect within marriage.
Keep in mind also that NFP is a method of birth control that is as effective as any other - yes, including the birth control pill - but does not separate the sexual act from it procreative ability. If a couple is truly unable to care for other children, NFP classes are readily available for free in the US.
Aerometis said:
The facts are you either are going to have to allow people to use birth control or allow masturbation, but one way or another the sex drive of every man and woman must be satisfied.
[insert expletive here]! Many men and women go without sex for the first 20 - 30 years of their lives. Many of those years are after puberty.
I used to both use BC and touch on a regular basis, and I can say that I was much happier after I quit one and kicked the habit with the other. Heck, my fiance (now husband) and I quit having sex after living together for a year because it was hurting our relationship (and my faith). We *lived together* celibately for a year, sleeping in the same bed and even showering together. It strengthened our relationship greatly. And now we have a great married relationship with lots of respect for the other's sexuality (although we've only been married for four days, so it might be a little hasty to say that
).
The trick isn't to try and "sate" the sex drive - the more you have sex, the more you "crave" it, like cigarettes. It's why it works so well to bring a man and a woman closer together; they "crave" something they can only get from each other. The trick is to learn to control the sex drive, so it is no longer an overwhelming force in your life. There is no other way to respect your spouse. Pardon my strong language, but I got caught in that trap. It almost ruined my relationship with the man who became my husband.
Aerometis said:
One of the reasons I believe there is a lot more child abuse in the Catholic Church is because of the celebacy issue because the Priests are sexually frustrated. It doesn't make it right, I am not excusing it, but it's something that we all have to come to grips with as Catholics. As far as I know, the Catholic Church is the only denomination not to allow Priests to marry and have a family and the Catholic Church is the one Church with the highest child abuse rate. I am not a rocket scientist but I think I can put 2 and 2 together here and see what's going on.
I am almost certain that the Catholic church does not have the highest child abuse rate, but is just the most publicized case of religious child abuse. I think other OBOBers who are more familiar know sources which show that the Catholic church religious are not unusually prone to child abuse. Someone mentioned in a forum that teachers are more likely to abuse children. However, I have no statistics on hand and will need to rely on other OBOBers to provide sources. I think you need to cite a source here if you want to use this argument, and may be just quoting an urban myth rather than actual fact. If you can provide evidence that this is fact, I will retract my statement.
Aerometis said:
It's very easy for us lay people to say what Priests should and shouldn't be able to do but why don't all of you try being celebate for the rest of your life. Many good candidates for the Priesthood leave seminaries because they find out they can't handle the celebacy part.
First of all, this isn't directly related to birth control, but to the issue of priestly celibacy, which is a different question.
However, I again ask- evidence, please? Assuming that such evidence exists - perhaps they find that this isn't their vocation, that they are called to marriage. Which is perfectly legitimate. If they choose to become deacons instead, then perhaps they do have a calling. In which case, if they still want to become priests, this may be evidence that God does call married men to the priesthood. However, like I said, that is another topic - less directly related to BC.
Aerometis said:
I am a strong believer that sex should wait until marriage. There is no waivering in that belief at all. I also believe that the purpose of getting married is to have children. I also believe that there are a lot of legitmate reasons for certain married people not to have children. There are some married people out their (Catholics and non Catholics) that shouldn't be parents. There are many people out there that for one reason or another can't have children.
This is why NFP may be appropriate. However, God should always be welcomed if He chooses otherwise for a family.
Aerometis said:
What's worse? Married people using birth control, or married people not using birth control and having a bunch of kids that end up as wards of the state because the parents don't have the means to take care of them?
The former, since there is reason - I believe *good* reason - to believe that ABC leads to an irreverent attitude towards sex, then towards abortion, and ultimately towards life in general. As a ward of the state whose parents didn't have the means to take care of me, I am saying this.
Aerometis said:
Birth control is not abortion.
Unless it has an abortifacient effect, like the Pill and many IUD's. Which can destroy a fertilized egg after the union of man and woman have been united in the beginning of a new life.
Which is actually my major reason for getting off of the Pill originally. And if the Pill and IUD's are out, the only reliable form of BC left that I know of is NFP. I don't consider condoms reliable enough; the most charitable estimates say that they are 93% effective, which isn't enough if one truly has serious reasons to avoid pregnancy.
Incidentally, I want to be clear that I am arguing with the ideas being written here, not with you yourself. From what I've seen of your posts on OBOB, you seem like a pretty neat person. But, respectfully, I think the church's position makes sense and that your arguments do not work.
