Gary, after almost a year, I'm amazed to see any response to this board. It was an exhausting couple of weeks. I did enjoy the back and forth and even enjoyed the discussion with Ian. I was glad that after a very long beginning he finally began to make and defend arguments rather than just make more assertions.
Thanks for the compliments, I do try to remain open to all things, which is contrary to some others on this board.
I do think you and I could enjoy a discussion and keep it light and friendly.
Thanks again for the comments, and Thanks to Dan and Jennifer for forwarding the comment to me.

Wow what an exchange. RR I do not know if you are still around but let me say that the likes of Ian do not represent the way ALL Christians think or behave any more than the legalist who refuses to defend their interpretation of the Bible by saying because God said so. It is my belief that the Christian church has lost its witness in the world due to these types of people acting as our voice. Although it is not my place to apologize for Ian, I do sincerely hope RR, that you do not lump us all together. Actually, after reading your posts, I can tell that you are too reasonable to do that. You and I could have a wonderful meal together reasoning with each other and simply sharing what we believe and how we have arrived at those beliefs. In fact, that is how Christ behaved and was constantly criticized by the "church" for it.
Take Care

RR - First, you keep saying that you have provided a logical argument why the Holocaust was wrong. I have provided another showing that from the perspective of the German state, it was right. This is the problem with no moral absolutes: you can argue until your blue in the face but in the end whoever has more power will most likely dismiss the opponents argument and do what he wants.

Part of the reason why the American experiment has worked so well is because we started with some basic assertions that everyone is endowed with the freedom to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (happiness meant personal property to the founders). It is why the American revolution didn't turn into a blood bath while the French revolution did - they had no defined ultimate principals.

Humans are sexual beings but that doesn't mean that they have to always have sex. You can say no or you are just an animal that can talk and use tools. We have never been in the position where there was an absolute necessity to abstain so we have used NFP initially to try and get pregnant (for the first two years of our marriage we thought we weren't going to be able to have kids) and then simply to know when the baby was due.

We have friends who have used NFP over long periods of time and I can say honestly that it is a sacrifice and can be hard but the couples who have used it and not approached it as a burden and denial of personal pleasure, have said that it helped them communicate more and actually learn more about each other. If you know you aren't going to be having sex, you find other things to fill your time.

I agree that NFP isn't as effective in regular use as pills or condoms but that speaks to those using it, not to the method itself. It certainly takes more responsibility and self control to use NFP properly and that is hard for everyone, Catholic or not.

To your other questions which I didn't see before due to the moderation delay:

1) Masturbation outside of the context of intercourse whether it is self or mutual is wrong because you are taking an act that is meant to be unifying and bonding and turning it into an act of selfish personal pleasure. Stimulating each other leading up to or following intercourse is not wrong. Self stimulation during intercourse is not wrong per se but you have to consider why you are doing it. If you feel the need to excite yourself, it seems there is a little bit of a communications problem where you can't express your needs / wants to your spouse.

2) Abstinence is not birth control in the same way that proper dieting is not bolemia. When I diet, I don't eat things that will increase my weight. When I am bolemic, I eat anyway and then force myself to throw up to avoid the consequences of eating. Abstaining from sex for the right reasons is the same. You avoid the action to avoid the consequences instead of doing the action while preventing the consequences. Abstinence / NFP CAN be used as birth control and when you have no real reason to prevent conception, that is what you are doing.

3) It depends on why the guy goes hot tubbing. In the Catholic view, there are three things that are required for something to be considered a "mortal" sin. 1) The action has to be premeditated. 2) The person has to know that the action is sinful (rationalizing yourself into believing that it isn't sinful FOR ME doesn't remove moral culpability) 3) You have to carry out the action.

So in this case, if the guy is aware that hot tubbing can kill sperm and he intentionally gets in a hot tub prior to sex with that intention and then has sex, yes, he is sinning. There is some question about how effective this method of birth control is and I certainly wouldn't want to be teaching that as a "safe" method.

4) Abstinence for the right reasons is acceptable because sex is not the defining sign of a marriage. What happens if you get older and lose the ability to have sex either through health problems or an accident? That doesn't make you any less married. Now it is true that a marriage has to be consummated because sex is a PART of marriage but since there is more to a marriage than sex, abstinence is not a denial of marriage.

Your argument about abstinence being a denial of fully giving yourself to your spouse would work if the only way to give yourself would be to have sex all the time. As great as this sounds for most guys, it isn't possible. You can't have sex all the time so you are always abstaining - sometimes it is just for longer periods than others.

Having sex is like any other physical interaction you have with others - it means something. You can shake someone's hand and it will mean many different things. Hopefully, a handshake means either the closing of an honest deal or a polite greeting. If I knew that someone wanted to make a deal with me that I couldn't agree to or follow through on, I certainly wouldn't want to shake on it because that would be a lie about what the handshake means. It is possible that we could redefine what a handshake means but do you think either party would shake hands if we redefined a handshake to mean that "we both agree to this agreement unless we really secretly don't"?

In the same way, sex is a sign that points to a few basic things by its very nature (leaving aside any religious significance). 1) Pleasure 2) Health 3) Bonding 4) reproduction.

What the Catholic Church has said is that because these things are all natural effects of sex, they are all an essential part of sex and that to try to remove any of these aspects makes sex mean something other than what is natural. We can certainly try to do it but we have to redefine what sex is in order to do so. Unfortunately, the physical realities of sex have done a pretty good job of thwarting a total reinterpretation.

5) If you have decided that for the right reasons you shouldn't have more children, you just need to make sure that you use NFP properly. It's a simple matter of taking responsibility for your actions and decisions. The Church isn't going to come to your house and tell you that you have to keep having kids. It is your decision you just have to take responsibility for it just as you have to stay on a certain dietary regiment if you have and want to control diabetes. You could certainly ignore the proper diet but you get the consequences for doing so.

6) Canon Law is more of a how-to manual of the governance of the Church than a compendium of moral and dogmatic teaching. For example, it states that you can't get married if you are married to someone else but doesn't get into the moral issues behind that.

The marriage vows you take as a Catholic include the following question:

"Will you accept children lovingly form God
and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?"

If you don't want children and won't accept them if given, then you can't get married as a Catholic.

All official statements from the Church, since there was an understanding of fertility cycles and NFP have said the same thing - using periodic abstinence to avoid pregnancy when such a pregnancy would be a health risk or be a true financial devastation to a family is morally acceptable. Before that you have 2000 years of teaching that contraception is wrong. In order for a future pope to change Church teaching on NFP and contraception, he would have to somehow explain why the past 2000 years of Church teaching (and all of the various branches of Christianity's teaching) on the topic were wrong. As much as people wish that would happen (with or without the explanation), they can't live with the assumption that the teaching will change in the future.

On your tangent about rich preachers, I can't speak to other denominations. The Catholic Church on Earth is run by - get ready for this - people. Just because they are Catholic, or even because they are popes and cardinals doesn't make them any less susceptible to the temptations of the world than you and me. In fact, because of their position, they are probably more inundated with temptations. Some give in and think that they deserve to live in palaces and get big salaries. You will routinely find that such people are condemned by members of the Church who in many cases end up being declared saints while those who believe they have a right to opulence are rightly condemned both within and without the Church. Does this mean that the Church should give away all its churches and money? No. It would not be able to help the poor and needy without money and churches are built to give glory to God, not to take money away from the poor. Christ set the example when he rebuked Judas for complaining about the "waste" of precious oils on Jesus' feet and said that the money used to buy the oil should have been given to the poor.

Dave - By your rational, those who are open and free about sex should be having fewer out of wedlock births, more stable relationships and fewer STDs. Unfortunately, the data doesn't bear that out. I'm not advocating Victorian silence on the topic but the notion that inundating people with sex talk will somehow lead to fewer pregnancies, fewer STDs and better relationships isn't shown in any data.

I am also curious where you get your stats on the hypocrisy of those who advocate abstinence and that those who advocate the loudest are proportionally more likely to be engaging in it improperly. Apart from a few high-profile cases (Ted Haggart comes to mind), I don't know of any real data that backs you up.

Even if you could find this to be the case, proving hypocrisy doesn't prove the argument wrong, it just proves that some people are hypocrites.

Wow, I couldn't have said it better myself! I have always said if there was more sex there would be a lot less fighting but you are right. Religious groups and these neocons have done everything they can to push the sexual revolution back into the stone age.

Their "don't ask don't tell" approach almost guarantees more underage pregnancies, disease and (last but not least) marriages where the partners can't even feel comfortable discussing their sex life!

What's really scary about this whole "movement" is the fact that it has been proven over and over that those that scream the loudest about the "sin of sex" are the ones that are doing it every chance they get and with anyone they can find.

Maybe some day people will wake up and remember that war and hate are a hell of a lot worse than sex!

Ian,
As I mentioned before, I'm not going to go into the whole holocaust thing again. It's wrong, it's logically wrong and I've explained it in many other posts.
I still don't get the comparison of sex to robbing a bank. Ok, I see you might see them both as damning you, but isn't that why you have confession and forgiveness? Robbing a bank is going to damn them here on earth. Regardless of confession or forgiveness, they're going to jail. Maybe you don't look at earthly punishments as meaning anything, but again, if my child is doing something that you might condemn them to hell for, I'd at least hope it wouldn't be something that would also condemn them to prison here on earth.
I appreciate you clearing up the "icky consequences" comment. It must have just come across wrong when written in context. Thanks for that.
Again, you use unreasonable comparisons in your arguments. There is a huge difference between a married couple where one is unable to have sex due to injury, disease or illness and a healthy loving couple that's expected to abstain from sex for 10-14 consecutive days per month. Let me ask you and please answer honestly. In all of the years you and your wife were practicing NFP, and since you have 10 children, it might not be that many years, but are you actually saying that you never just said "to hell with it" and just risked it. (Ok, you might have used some other phrase, but you get the point)
My point is that humans are sexual beings, and for a loving married couple, at least one that looks at sex as something other than pro-creation, sex is emotional. The moment will strike you. Now, of course, timing is important, kids are awake, gotta get up early, gotta go to work, baby's crying etc etc. There are things there to interrupt, but when you're expected to abstain that regularly and that often it's just unreasonable to believe that healthy couples won't just jump in and have fun regardless of the potential risks. (and lets keep in mind what were arguing here, this is just to the effectiveness of NFP. Science says it's not as accurate.
Now, regarding your comment that my marriage is weaker because I say that kind of regular extended abstinance is unreasonable to expect. I would take the other side and question the strength of your marriage because you say it's fully reasonable to expect that. I've been married for 9 years and I'm sure we've gone 10-14 days on many occasions, but during those times, it's nice knowing we could at any time. During your 10-14 day stints, you know you can't.
Here's one thing that I know you and I will disagree on. If I was in a condition where I was unable to give my wife that kind of physical affection, I would ask her to find it elsewhere. I wouldn't expect my wife to miss out on that pleasure for the rest of her life because I was incapacitated. I love my wife and want for her to be happy and have everything.
As stated before, have as many kids as you want. You're able to take care of them, without depending on the government. I have no problems with large families, just the ones that continue to procreate after not being able to provide for the ones they have, and then use the argument that birth control is against their religion. The only thing I'd advise, watch your ages when it comes to having kids. I know you want to be there for them, and be able to do things with them. I've known kids in high school who have fathers in their 60's and even 70's. As a father that old, you're not able to do many of the things a teenager needs.
I'd also like to know your take on my last post directly above your most recent post. It's all about the questions around NFP and canon law. Thanks.

RR - I still stand by my statement that you haven't explained why the Holocaust was wrong. The German government approved it, the German courts backed it up and German society was not destabilized by it. So what is the rational that the Holocaust was wrong? You keep saying that there are wrongs and rights, I have read that several times. But you also say that there are no absolutes. I have also read that several times. You say that you can deduce a right or wrong through logic which I will agree with but you have yet to provide a logical reason for why the Holocaust was wrong. You can argue from personal security and freedom from fear all you want but when the government decides that it wants you to be afraid and that you are a threat to the stability of society regardless of your desire for personal safety, what do you stand on to say that the government is wrong?

Concerning comparing premarital sex to robbing a store or suicide, in the Catholic view where such behavior can all damn you, they all can be on the same plain. So I'm not going to be telling my teenager to wear condoms anymore than I would tell her to be sure and wear a mask while robbing the store to keep herself "safe".

The comment about "icky consequences" wasn't directed at you personally and I apologize for not making that clear. It was directed at people who are promiscuous in general who see abortion as the second line of birth control defense when nature makes its way through the chemicals and plastic.

If your wife were injured or sick and you weren't able to have sex, would you be able to control yourself? If you can't handle ten days a month without sex, then I question the long-term stability of your marriage.

All of our children have been planned in that we were quite aware when my wife was fertile and that she could end up pregnant. We discussed financially, physically and emotionally if we could have more children and so far have said yes. The only government assistance we get is our tax refund. Are we rich? Not by a long shot. We just choose family over stuff. That wasn't directed at you, just at society in general that has moved stuff above family in importance.

It appears that we have pretty much discussed our main argument as far as it is going and have wandered off into quite a few tangents.

I appreciate your persistence in continuing the discussion and in spite of Jeff, think it was worthwhile.

Ian, I've got a bit more on the subject of NFP.
1.) You said that all ejaculation is to be in the vagina, so would that make masturbation a sin?
2.) Wouldn't abstinence be considered birth control?
3.) How about if a guy goes hot-tubbing prior to sex, is that considered birth control? (sperm can't live in high temps)
4.) You said in an earlier post - "The Church also teaches that sex is the most complete giving of yourself you can possibly have and that such giving needs to be unselfish. By withholding your ability to create life with the one you are having sex with, you are physically saying “I give myself to you but only part of me.” " So, assuming that is true, how can any abstinence be acceptable? How can you give of yourself fully to another and yet hold out on sex for 10 days per month? Thereby only giving "part of you".
5.) You also said if you're not ready for kids, you're not ready for marriage. What if you've had kids and you've decided that's enough kids, why don't you have that choice?
6.) Does it say clearly in canon law that NFP or marital abstinence is Ok, or is that an interpretation by the pope? What if a new pope changes the interpretation?
This is the problem I have with organized religion. I have to go sit and listen to some guy who's paid way too much money stand there and give me his interpretation of a book that I'm supposed to believe is the word of god. I can go to another church and sit in front of another guy who's paid way too much money and he'll give me another interpretation of that same book. The "paid too much and living in too expensive of a home" is an entirely different and equally frustrating subject for me. Why is that people who hardly have enough to live on are expected to give to a church who (in large churches) pays the pastor / preacher / priest (most religions do this) in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars per year and sometimes put them up in a multi-million dollar mansions. How is this acceptable? Why do people tolerate this? I guess it's so you can have the best available preacher for your church, but these people give money they can't afford to give so this guy can live that lifestyle and preach to others to give. Anyway, that was just a side rant.
Sorry Dan and Jennifer if I'm "ranting" too much on your board... :o)

Ian,
You know when I first read that last post by Peter, I was going to come to your defense, and then you again show your true colors in your most recent post. What happened to people all have the right to their belief? Practice what you preach my friend, sorry, I forgot you're catholic (no intended offense to other catholics, Ian and I have a history)

Again, you don't read. I've said over and over again that many things are wrong. Just because I don't believe there is a god mandated set of absolutes doesn't mean I don't believe there are wrongs and rights. As I mentioned in so many posts above, they can be explained logically. So, before you continue to put words in my mouth about not believing murder is wrong, re-read the earlier posts.

Now, on to your other rants. When you changed / clarified your statement to attacking Dan and Jennifer for saying consentual premarital sex is wrong, and not so much things that a married couple might do consensualy, I backed off my attack. You and I will never agree on premarital sex. We've each argued our points, it's pointless to sit here and debate every argument for hours on end. You believe it's wrong, I think that's a simplistic view. I believe that responsible adults can have sex without negative consequences, and irresponsible adults staying virgins will have negative consequences regardless of what the preacher says. It's a person to person thing. There are negatives to those who practice sex before marriage irresponsibly, just as there are negatives to virgin catholics who marry too early just so they can have sex! It's not all black and white as you like to think it is.

HOLOCAUST -
This being the fourth time I've made my point on the holocaust known. It was wrong!!! any further questions on this, please read earlier posts.

SWIFT REPRISALS IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM -
The first link you gave is for Canada, but the second link showed some pattern of cover-ups in the school system. Point taken, however, does that give any excuse for the catholic church's actions regarding the same corruption and cover-ups?

ANNULMENTS -
Yes, I still stand by the rich getting more annulments. I know, it's without reference and I make no actual claims that it's true (read above posts) but when John Kerry gets an annulment after 16 years of marriage, something is fishy. Now, in your defense, you admitted that the annulment system in the US has problems, so I think we're in agreement here. However, there are too many interpretations for the rules of canon law regarding an annulment for me to give any credibility to the system.

NFP-
Yes, I still stand by it being a policy to guarantee future church members. Are you claiming that the catholic church didn't look at world domination? History of corruption isn't just a claim, 600 years ago, they did some very bad things!
You said - "Why do we expect people to do their jobs correctly 99% of the time but when it comes to sex, you think that people lose self control? We always can say no." -
Because of the chemicals that are released when it comes to sex. (read YOUR earlier posts) They're not just released during sex, men especially, have completely different "personalities" (couldn't come up with a better word, but people will commonly say men think with two different heads) before and immediately after ejaculation. So, yes we can always say no, but we're all human and prone to emotional responses that might not be logical or in our best interest.
You said - "Yes, the failure rate of NFP can be 20% when used by people who aren’t serious about it"
Nope, YOUR study said TYPICAL usage was as high as 20%, and perfect usage could be as low as below 1%. I'll say again, that's a huge difference. So, you're out of commission for 14 days a month for the first year, then after keeping accurate records for this year, you can cut that down to 10 days in a row of abstinence per month. You claim you can be almost 100%, (I thought birth control was a sin, yes, even NFP) I stand by my claim that NFP is nowhere as effective as traditional scientific methods of BC.
YOUR DAUGHTER -
I'm having a hard time commenting on this because it's a personal thing, and I don't know you or your daughter. You said - "While I would prefer my daughter not to be doing something that can send her to Hell, if she is going to do that then I would prefer she do what she could to avoid further temporal consequences. If she did end up pregnant, I would do everything I could to keep the baby from getting killed." Nothing personal, but who the hell said anything about a baby getting killed?? I'm not sure what you mean by temporal consequences?

You said - "I would never say “If you’re going to have sex, use a condom.” as that would be condoning the sex in the first place. In the same way I wouldn’t tell my kids “if you are going to rob a store, please don’t kill anyone.”" Again, I really don't know where you get these analogies. Earlier you compared sex to suicide, now it's compared to robbing a bank. I don't think the large majority of people rob banks, however, the large majority of people have sex prior to marriage, so playing the odds, safe sex practices are very valuable for all to know.
YOUR FAMILY -
I'm surprised how many kids you have considering the effectiveness of NFP. I know that's a smartass comment, just trying to keep the board light. I'm sure they were all planned. Now, let me say, I have no problem with you having a huge family, that's your choice. However, if you're depending on the government for assistance because you're unable to provide for all the kids, I've got a problem. If your newest addition on the way (Congratulations by the way) comes at a late point in your life, meaning you're going to be too old to really be there for the child as they grow, then I've got a problem with that as I think it's a selfish attitude to have. Speaking of that problem, do you and your wife just continue to pro-create as long as your bodies will allow. Don't you realize how older women become a much higher-risk pregnancy just from age? Isn't this a selfish attitude to continue to push her body to the risk and detrament to the child and the mother?
However, the only reason I brought up disowning your kids is when you made the statement comparing your children commiting suicide and not caring about a dirty needle, when I asked about a child of yours having pre-marital sex if you'd prefer they use a condom to prevent STDs. So, from you statement, it sounded like they were as good as dead to you. Maybe I read it too harshly.
PETER'S COMMENT- To Peter. As much as I hate to say this considering how Ian has condoned me over and over again, but he's entitled to his opinion and his beliefs. I do believe that he believes what he's saying. I don't agree, but I do respect his confidence in what he believes. Many people search for that kind of absoluteness in life, I'm glad he's found it. The computer, friends, purpose and get a life comments are not really helpful. Maybe they were directed at me as well, but we're all here to read and debate, so as much as I've made mistakes on here as well, I think it's best if we all refrain from personal attacks that have nothing to do with the topic. Yes, I'm even writing this after he attacks me as being ridiculous.

DIRECTED STRAIGHT TO IAN, FROM AN EARLIER POST - I MISSED THIS COMMENT FROM YOU - "they seem to believe in the absolute of personal pleasure as long as it is consensual and you can avoid all the icky results like kids that can come from it."
What part of not buying into absolutes don't you understand? I don't believe in the absolute of personal pleasure, but when two consenting adults choose to do something with their bodies in private, I don't care and neither should you. Now, regarding your remarkably vicious comment about the "icky results like kids", how dare you pretend to know me. I've told you before, I have three kids and one last one on the way. I love my children, and I don't see kids as an icky result, and just because I don't see pre-marrital sex as a sin doesn't mean I'm a horrible child hating satanist! You continue to show your true colors that anyone who doesn't believe as you do is a bad person! That was a very shitty comment and you owe myself and many other readers who might disagree with you on the topic at hand an apology!

Hi Peter,

I didn't realize you were a mind reader. Which assertions of mine don't I believe?

And what if I have a purpose - to sit here on this forum and drive you nuts. Who are you to judge my purpose?

I have been making about the corruption charges and mass murder because RR is VERY insistent that there is nothing that is always wrong. I think mass murder is wrong. I also think corruption is wrong. I don't understand why he thinks it is wrong when he insists that there are no absolutes.

If you want to talk about being ridiculous, he is the one you need to be addressing.