Daniel,
Having looked into the subject somewhat, and having a few resources close at hand, I'm going to shovel out a good bit of information here. Please do not interpret this as meaning that I think I know it all, or that there is only one view and that I think badly of those who disagree. I myself struggle with this issue, and find myself much more moderate than the words of the Fathers which I'll be speaking about. However, after having looked into the subject, I think that a few things are clear (they seem clear to me anyway). Please let me know in what ways you think I am wrong.
I'm reading an essay by George S. Gabreal called "You Call My Words Immodest: On the Undefiled Marital Bed" (it is in the book The Mystery of Gender and Human Sexuality from Synaxis Press).
I would recommend caution while reading that essay; it has a good bit of unnecessary anti-westernism and anti-Augustinianism. Not that I have anything against pointing out errors when they are indeed errors. The problem, IMO, is that many Orthodox writing about this subject today erect a straw man out of various western (and normally Augustinian) quotes, and then try to beat it to a pulp using selective quotes from St. John Chrysostom (and perhaps a few other, supposedly moderate, "Eastern" Saints). Obviously straw men are not the best way to ascertain the truth 
I am not going to say that the Western Church had the same tone as the Eastern Church when it came to sex. If someone researches topics like contraception and clerical celibacy, it is obvious that the "west" was more strict than the "east". However, I think Noonan hit the nail on the head when he said:
"If the other teachings of Chrysostom had also been adopted [in the west], that the marital act is sacral and that interruption of the procreative process is worse than murder, no concrete difference for the rule of contraception would have followed. It can scarcely be denied, however, that if Chrysostom's ideas had become the leading ones in theological development in the west, a different theological tone, a different way of looking at marriage might have led to different results in the active rethinking of theology..." - John T. Noonan, Contraception: A History of It's Treatment by Catholic Theologians and Canonists, (Harvard University Press, 1965), p. 139
In other words, while the tone of what St. John Chrysostom said about marriage in general was different from, let's say, Bl. Augustine or St. Gregory the Great, the fact remains that both "sides" strictly disallowed the use of contraception, and the west would not have taught differently regarding contraception even if the teachings of St. John Chrysostom had been their model rather than Augustine's. It should also be said that, while the west might have been stricter in its understanding and practice, this did not mean that it was unorthodox. Stricter does not equal more or less Orthodox, it was simply a different way of going about things.
In one of the foot notes he say the church never wrote a canon condemning cotraception. He does extinsively quote St. John Chrysostom
I would suggest, with all due respect to the author of the essay, that St. John Chrysostom cannot accurately be promoted as being pro-contraception. At best, St. John's view is ambiguous and depends on circumstance (cf Homily 24 on Romans; Homily 28 on Matthew). In any event, St. John wrote a lot about marriage, but not all of it is as moderate as one might expect by reading contemporary Orthodox literature.
Regarding the footnote which you mentioned, the claim that the author makes is, I think, misleading. The author states, "Yet she [ie. the Church] never legislated against avoiding conception... The Church Councils clearly respected the honour and intimacy of the marital bed, and id not legislate or permit a third party to regulate the relationship of two who became one."(p. 84; fn 57)
This quote echoes something quoted in footnote 32. In that footnote, the author makes it sound like contraception is never asked about, and gives a quote which states that: "the entire domain of the relations between a husband and wife is too intimate to provoke investigations by the priest" (emphasis mine).
I do not believe that this view is accurate. Let me clarify that: I am not saying that in some places, at some times, that it did not happen. However, to say that the Church as a whole, throughout the past 2 millenia, never spoke on the subject, is incorrect. This view that priests "stayed out of the sex lives of married couples" can be disproven by taking a look at the evidence (including the conciliar and canonical evidence).
"In her survey of Slavic penitential material, Eve Levin (Sex and Society in the World of the Orthodox Slavs, 900-1700 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989), pp. 175-176) discusses how contraception was perceived: 'From the medieval Slavic perspective, contraception, abortion, and infanticide were similar offenses; provisions against birth control did not always distinguish among them. All three represented the same thing: an attempt to forestall the introduction into the world of a new soul. For that reason, all three offenses were sometimes called dusgube’e, literally, 'the destruction of a soul.'" (From Fr. John Schroedel's work, Is there a Traditional view of Contraception?)
Speaking of penitential literature, Noonan says: "Acts preventing conception are invariably treated as serious sins. This spiritual condemnation is the gravest sanction imposed by the penitentials... The great value of the prescribed penances, for our investigation, is that they afford some measure of the gravity with which contraception was regarded as compared to other sins... some generalisations may be made... Anal or oral intercourse is treated as a serious sin by everyone who mentions such behavior. Many writers prescribe a more serious penance for it than for homicide committed by a layman; without exception, such acts are treated as more serious than the abortion of a fetus under forty days... Selectively, the penitentials have drawn on the Fathers to condemn conduct thwarting procreation. - Noonan, Contraception, pp. 162-166
"If any woman has fornicated and has killed the infant thence born or has desired to commit an abortion and kill what she has conceived, or to take steps so that she may not conceive, either in adultery or in legitimate marriage; the earlier canons decreed that such a women might receive communion at death; we, however, in mercy judge that such women, or other women who are accomplices of their crimes, should do penance for 10 years. (Chapters From the Synods of the Eastern Fathers, 77, In Martin, Opera, p. 142)" - Noonan, Contraception, p. 149
For my own part, I think Noonan gets a lot wrong, as I wrote in my half-finished critique of his book on my website, but then, he also gets things right sometimes, and is without a doubt a good source for quotes. It is for the last reason that I will quote him a lot in this post: because he is a good source of information, even if I disagree with most of his conclusions (and even some of his premises).
Daniel wrote: To answer the question about birth control, I think you need to answer another question first: What is the purpose of marital sex? Is it's primary reason for procreation? Or, is it more for preventing one from fornicating or commiting adultery?... I guess I'll take the first shot at answering. NO, marital sex is not primarily for procreation. and, YES, is more for the prevention of fornication and adultery.
Well, actually, according to the Fathers, sex is primarily for procreation. Or, at least, that is one of the two main purposes (along with a curb against fornication and lust). All the Fathers list procreation as a main function of sex, and some go so far as to say that procreation is one of the few justifiable reasons for having sex. Here are some quotes:
In an effort to show how moral Christians were, Saint Justin Martyr said that Christians "marry only to produce children" (Apology for Christians, 1, 29)
Noonan summarized the teachings of Jerome thusly: "The marital act, he taught, was lustful unless for procreation (On Galatians 5)... The version [of Tobit] as given by Jerome was an explicit endorsement of the procreative purpose as the sole proper purpose in intercourse." - Noonan, Contraception, pp. 79, 81
Noonan summarized the teachings of Augustine thusly: "The fault involved in not having a procreative purpose is not a lethal one. It is not, Augustine says, adultery or fornication. Yet an unmarried woman living in a sexual relationship with an unmarried man and only wanting children may be less of a sinner than some matrons who seek marital intercourse 'not for progeny, but intemperately'" (The Good of marriage, 6,6) In general, the sin is what the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:6 permits by 'pardon'. It is a sin, but a small sin (Ibid., 10, 11). In later words Augustine reaffirms these conclusions on intercourse without procreative purpose. Such intercourse is the kind of sin, he says, in a sermon, that may be cleansed by ordinary acts of Christian charity such as almsgiving (sermons 9, 11, 18)." - Noonan, Contraception, pp. 129-130
Or put another way: "...once married, one may not avoid children. It is lawless and shameful to lie with one's wife where the conception of offspring is avoided: 'This is what Onan, the son of Juda, did, and God killed him for it.' You may marry to give an outlet to your incontinence, 'but you ought not to temper your evil so that you exterminate the good of marriage, that is, the propagation of children' (Augustine, Adulterous Marriages, 2, 12, 12)" - Noonan, Contraception, p. 137
And another summary from Noopnan: "In his Pastoral Rule, [St.] Gregory [the Great] provided a chapter on 'How the Married and the Celibate Are to Be Admonished.' The married were to be admonished that they might copulate only to produce children. This was merely Augustine. But Gregory went further. Not only is pleasure an unlawful purpose in intercourse, but if any pleasure is 'mixed' with the act of intercourse, the married have 'trasgressed the law of marriage.' Their sin, to be sure, is as small a one as the nonprocreative purpose in Augustine; it may be remitted by 'frequent prayers.' But sin has been committed. The guilty married have 'befouled' their intercourse by their 'pleasures' (Gregory the Great, Pastoral Rule 3.27)." - Noonan, Contraception, p. 150
And something from the Apostolic Constitutions: "And fornication is the destruction of one's own flesh, not being made use of for the procreation of children, but entirely for the sake of pleasure, which is a mark of incontinency, and not a sign of virtue. All these things are forbidden by the laws... Now a lover of God ought not to be a lover of pleasure." - Apostolic Constitutions 6, 28
I am not saying that I agree with everything in all of these quotes. Some of the things said I struggle with, and some I just plain-out disagree with (and probably would never agree). But then I remind myself: if you are disagreeing, you are disagreeing with a saint. How fearsome such a disagreement is! In any event, I think (even though it is far from an exhaustive list of quotes) that the quotes illustrates the Church's teaching that procreation is a central reason for sexual relations.
Avoiding fornication is the other main reason given for sexual relations (1 Cor. 7; Saint John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4, 24; Saint John Chrysostom, On Those Words of the Apostle, "On Account of Fornication"; etc.) Past these two things (ie. procreation and fighting sexual sin), however, there is little patristic support for other reasons for having sex. I'm not saying that there aren't other reasons, I'm just saying that the Fathers don't talk a lot about other reasons, and I have to believe that there is a good reason that they didn't talk about it.
I'll even add that marital sex itself is fullfillment of the the two becoming one which is not lessened if no children are conceived.
I agree with the last part, though I think it is an exception and the general rule for most of us is different. In principle, a couple who cannot have children can certainly have sexual relations and not be sinning (though some fathers would have been uneasy with such a belief). In that way, procreation is not an absolute requirement. I will concede that sexual relations are the pinnacle of closeness, physically speaking. However, as Christians the joining of our souls (in mutual love, struggle, etc.) is much more important. This is why even for celibate couples it can honestly be said that "two have become one". (And don't forget that before the fall there were no sexual relations-- we cannot limit two becoming one simply to two people having sex).
Consider what the Scripture itself says: "For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety (1 Tim. 2:13-15). Notice what the main focus of the female being saved is: childbirth. But also added onto this is faith, love, holiness, and sobriety. Sexual relations is barely even visible--it is only the unmentioned vehicle for receiving the child. And the virtues are given more of a place regarding how a married couple would be saved.
Also, when the Fathers speak of "two becoming one," they normally do so in relation to a child being born. It is true that St. John Chrysostom said :
"And What then? when there is no child, will they not be two? Nay, for their coming together hath this effect, it diffuses and commingles the bodies of both. And as one who hath cast ointment into oil, hath made the whole one; so in truth." - St. John Chrysostom, Homily 12 on Colossians
However, this is an exception mentioned by St. John. The great saint was here dealing with an exceptional case--with an objection or difficult question that might be raised. But his main thought behind "two becoming one" he articulates in this way:
"Thou marriest a wife for chastity, and procreation of children... They come, about to be made one body. See again a mystery of love! If the two become not one, so long as they continue two, they make not many, but when they are come into oneness, they then make many... And the child is a sort of bridge, so that the three become one flesh, the child connecting, on either side, each to other. For like as two cities, which a river divides throughout, become one, if a bridge connect them on both sides, so is it in this case; and yet more, when the very bridge in this case is formed of the substance of each. As the body and the head are one body; for they are divided by the neck; but not divided more than connected, for it, lying between them brings together each with the other." - John Chrysostom, Homily 12 on Colossians
Sexual relations alone is not a "mystical experience". I'm not accusing anyone of gnosticism here--please don't misunderstand--but it is note worthy of note that pretty much the only people during the times of the early Church who considered sexual relations to have some type of elevated spiritual meaning were gnostic heretics. To give some quotes from Noonan again:
"Other Gnostics also abused the Christian agape: 'There are some who call Aphrodite Pandemos [physical love] a mystical comunion... They have impiously called by the name of communion any common sextual intercourse... These thrice-wretched men treat carnal and sexual intercourse as a sacred religious mystery, and think that it will bring them to the kingdom of God.'" - John T. Noonan, Contraception: A History of Its Treatment By the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, (Harvard University Press, 1965), p. 64
"Yet the whole thrust of the antinomian current was to devalue marriage, to deprive marital relations of any particular purpose, and to value sexual intercourse as experience, not for the procreation which might follow." - John T. Noonan, Contraception: A History of Its Treatment By the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, (Harvard University Press, 1965), p. 68
"When Origen says that the Holy Spirit is not present in the act of intercourse he is deliberately contrasting ordinary, sinless acts such as this with special occasions, such as prophesying, where the Holy Spirit is present" - John T. Noonan, Contraception: A History of Its Treatment By the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, (Harvard University Press, 1965), p. 77 (FN 20) - Origen, On Matthew 14.23 and Hoily 6 on Numbers 21.24
"Epiphanius, a native of Palestine, in his late teens journeyed to Egypt in search of spiritual instruction. He encountered a group of secret Gnostics, who instructed him in their doctrine and showed him their books, while beautiful girls, members of the sect, invited him to be saved by intercourse with them." - John T. Noonan, Contraception: A History of Its Treatment By the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, (Harvard University Press, 1965), p. 95
"Having had this guilt-ridden experience of sexual intercourse in a quasi-permanent union, Augustine believed there was nothing rational, spiritual, sacramental in the act of intercourse itself... Sexual intercourse in marriage is the greatest threat to spiritual freedom: 'I feel that nothing more turns the masculine mind from the heights than female blandishments and that contact of bodies without which a wife may not be had." - John T. Noonan, Contraception: A History of Its Treatment By the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, (Harvard University Press, 1965), p. 126
This last quote by Augustine might seem a bit strict or unOrthodox, but I don't think it's too far from the general Orthodox position; and however you look at it--whether you personally agree with it or not--it is certainly a tenable Orthodox position (though it of course works both ways, not just in how females effect males). Really, when you read the Scripture (cf Matt. 19:10-12; 1 Cor. 7) and the Fathers, sexual relations are seen as interfering with spirituality, not facilitating it.
This isn't to say that I view sex, or enjoying sex, as a sin (though some Fathers did, and we should be careful to not attack those who hold to such a position, unless we would also be willing to say the same things to the face of a Saint like Gregory the Great). However, certainly sex takes one's mind off of God and puts it on earthly things. Now let me clarify here: there is a difference between sex and marriage. Just because I say that sex interferes with spirituality, that doesn't mean that I am saying that marriage itself interferes with spirituality. In certain ways, even marriage does interfere (1 Cor. 7 says so explicitly); however, as the Fathers teach, for most of us, marriage is a God-given sacrament that will lead us to marriage. We just have to learn how to both live as married people and seek our own salvation at the same time!
Anyway, certainly sexual relations help build some type of psychological bond--and I'd even concede that it goes deeper than that, helping two become one in much more than just a psychological or psychosomatic way. But I would hesitate to call it a mystical or spiritual experience. Whatever it is and however it works, I think it is wrapped in a mystery, and has more to do with magnifying that which is near-divine in our humanness (since sex should be a serious effort of love, openness, and other virtues), and is not really the actual working of the Holy Spirit at that particular moment. However, how much emphasis we place on such a bond should perhaps be curbed considering that the Fathers rarely, if ever, mention such a thing as a reason for sexual relations. Personally, I struggle (intellectually and otherwise) with much of what the Church teaches on sex, and struggle even more with what the Church doesn't say about sex (ie. I struggle with the silence).
I don't say all of the above, thinking that if you disagree, that you are gravely sinning. Again, I would bring up the distinction between general and personal: the above is what I understand to be the general revelation given to us by God, through God's Church. And mixed in with it is my own personal, probably many times inaccurate, understanding. As I said before, not having a "high" (saintly) perspective, but rather a low (sinful) perspective, I most likely get many things wrong. For whatever I have gotten wrong here, I apologize.
And more importantly, if I have caused offense or scandal, I apologize. These are the words of God (revealed through the Fathers) as I understand them. I can't abide by them in daily practical life. But, the subject having been raised, I do try to repeat what (I believe) the Fathers said, in spite of my own inability to consistently follow the words. Also, as I said before, it is for those more mature (priests and so forth) to apply the general principles articulated above. I do not claim to be speaking with any authority, either as a teacher or (what is unimaginably absurd!) someone giving pastoral advice. I'm only trying to pass on what I've read and learnt as I looked into the subject.
