JoCa

Nope. Marrying a woman because you want to have sex with her used to be called "honorable". Nowadays, guys who want a girl just sleep with her. No, marriage is not unrighteous, even if you're marrying because you want her physical goods. There are certainly better reasons to marry, and marrying for sex often results in a suboptimal outcome. But unrighteous? Absolutely not.

Interesting..  just the other day I read an article about the falling marriage rates.  That contrary to expectation young men were not afraid to commit to marriage.  But due to sex out in the world being cheap and easy to obtain they had no reason to commit.  Marriage now a days offered them nothing that they could not get elsewhere easier.  Thus out in the world it is simple case of supply and demand and the supply is oversaturated. 
Now the church has held the line here.  So for faithful members of the church the price of sex is still high.  I am pretty sure for a lot of faithful guys in the church who get married, on the list of reasons why they got married "to have sex" and it is probably pretty high.  And that is pretty much acceptable and expected.  Of course being a "faithful" guy they are also expected to understand a accept the idea of Eternal companion and covenant with God, and those are also on the list.  And if they are not "faithful" guys why are they even bothering with getting married when the world offers them easier ways to getting sex?

Umm, I really don't have a problem with this.  You do know that it takes two people to get married right?  She had to say yes. And it's says it's okay in the scriptures to do so.
1 Cor. 7:8-9
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
And one of the primary outcomes of sex is children and continuing the circle of life is essential to this life. Even using birth control they ain't perfect and somewhere 3 times out of 100 you will get pregnant   I don't know that it's the best long-term reason . . .but then again God gave men these desires specifically so they would have the desire to start a family. So no, I don't have a single problem with it.
Now, that changes if the guy is like well I'm going to get married so I can have sex and then when I've had my fill or I'd like to have sex with someone else then I'll just get a divorce-that it very bad and very deceitful.  I think there was a rumor going about of BYU students who went to Vegas to "get married" had a weekend of debauchery, got divorced and then tried to claim they never broke the law of chastity . . .they were ex'd. Simply because they never planned to actually be married.  So if the guy got married then got divorced, yeah big problem.  Otherwise, not a problem 
 
 

Umm, I really don't have a problem with this.  You do know that it takes two people to get married right?  She had to say yes. And it's says it's okay in the scriptures to do so.
1 Cor. 7:8-9
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
And one of the primary outcomes of sex is children and continuing the circle of life is essential to this life. Even using birth control they ain't perfect and somewhere 3 times out of 100 you will get pregnant   I don't know that it's the best long-term reason . . .but then again God gave men these desires specifically so they would have the desire to start a family. So no, I don't have a single problem with it.
Now, that changes if the guy is like well I'm going to get married so I can have sex and then when I've had my fill or I'd like to have sex with someone else then I'll just get a divorce-that it very bad and very deceitful.  I think there was a rumor going about of BYU students who went to Vegas to "get married" had a weekend of debauchery, got divorced and then tried to claim they never broke the law of chastity . . .they were ex'd. Simply because they never planned to actually be married.  So if the guy got married then got divorced, yeah big problem.  Otherwise, not a problem 
 
 

Umm, I really don't have a problem with this.  You do know that it takes two people to get married right?  She had to say yes. And it's says it's okay in the scriptures to do so.
1 Cor. 7:8-9
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
And one of the primary outcomes of sex is children and continuing the circle of life is essential to this life. Even using birth control they ain't perfect and somewhere 3 times out of 100 you will get pregnant   I don't know that it's the best long-term reason . . .but then again God gave men these desires specifically so they would have the desire to start a family. So no, I don't have a single problem with it.
Now, that changes if the guy is like well I'm going to get married so I can have sex and then when I've had my fill or I'd like to have sex with someone else then I'll just get a divorce-that it very bad and very deceitful.  I think there was a rumor going about of BYU students who went to Vegas to "get married" had a weekend of debauchery, got divorced and then tried to claim they never broke the law of chastity . . .they were ex'd. Simply because they never planned to actually be married.  So if the guy got married then got divorced, yeah big problem.  Otherwise, not a problem 
 
 

Umm, I really don't have a problem with this.  You do know that it takes two people to get married right?  She had to say yes. And it's says it's okay in the scriptures to do so.
1 Cor. 7:8-9
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
And one of the primary outcomes of sex is children and continuing the circle of life is essential to this life. Even using birth control they ain't perfect and somewhere 3 times out of 100 you will get pregnant   I don't know that it's the best long-term reason . . .but then again God gave men these desires specifically so they would have the desire to start a family. So no, I don't have a single problem with it.
Now, that changes if the guy is like well I'm going to get married so I can have sex and then when I've had my fill or I'd like to have sex with someone else then I'll just get a divorce-that it very bad and very deceitful.  I think there was a rumor going about of BYU students who went to Vegas to "get married" had a weekend of debauchery, got divorced and then tried to claim they never broke the law of chastity . . .they were ex'd. Simply because they never planned to actually be married.  So if the guy got married then got divorced, yeah big problem.  Otherwise, not a problem 
 
 

Umm, I really don't have a problem with this.  You do know that it takes two people to get married right?  She had to say yes. And it's says it's okay in the scriptures to do so.
1 Cor. 7:8-9
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
And one of the primary outcomes of sex is children and continuing the circle of life is essential to this life. Even using birth control they ain't perfect and somewhere 3 times out of 100 you will get pregnant   I don't know that it's the best long-term reason . . .but then again God gave men these desires specifically so they would have the desire to start a family. So no, I don't have a single problem with it.
Now, that changes if the guy is like well I'm going to get married so I can have sex and then when I've had my fill or I'd like to have sex with someone else then I'll just get a divorce-that it very bad and very deceitful.  I think there was a rumor going about of BYU students who went to Vegas to "get married" had a weekend of debauchery, got divorced and then tried to claim they never broke the law of chastity . . .they were ex'd. Simply because they never planned to actually be married.  So if the guy got married then got divorced, yeah big problem.  Otherwise, not a problem 
 
 

Umm, I really don't have a problem with this.  You do know that it takes two people to get married right?  She had to say yes. And it's says it's okay in the scriptures to do so.
1 Cor. 7:8-9
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
And one of the primary outcomes of sex is children and continuing the circle of life is essential to this life. Even using birth control they ain't perfect and somewhere 3 times out of 100 you will get pregnant   I don't know that it's the best long-term reason . . .but then again God gave men these desires specifically so they would have the desire to start a family. So no, I don't have a single problem with it.
Now, that changes if the guy is like well I'm going to get married so I can have sex and then when I've had my fill or I'd like to have sex with someone else then I'll just get a divorce-that it very bad and very deceitful.  I think there was a rumor going about of BYU students who went to Vegas to "get married" had a weekend of debauchery, got divorced and then tried to claim they never broke the law of chastity . . .they were ex'd. Simply because they never planned to actually be married.  So if the guy got married then got divorced, yeah big problem.  Otherwise, not a problem 
 
 

The thing is, though... we don't have to strain the example for the young women to take umbrage.  They already take umbrage at the teaching that the standard of modesty itself is BOTH an attitude of respect for one's body AS WELL AS sustaining the priesthood.  The OP seems to point to a lament that I have started to notice as a common theme in lds.net - that people don't want women's modesty to have anything to do with the men at all.
The fact that you felt inclined to have to strain the example is already a sign of the issue.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching young women to dress modestly for boys.  Young women know what this means just as any young woman knows the meaning of dressing to attract boys.  After all, it is a natural instinct of females that ensure the survival of the species.  Any details as to the tightness of clothing or the amount of exposed skin or, gasp, the print of said clothing that constitute modesty is an argument of Pharisees.  Young women know when they're catching the attention of the boys in the room.  Self reflection as pertains to modesty is to come with humility and not the prideful attitude of "not my brother's keeper" as you say.  Faithful LDS should know the difference.
I present to you the damage that has been done to American society by 3rd wave feminists.  That is why I call it a cancer.  Even faithful Christians have not been able to escape its reach.  It is so bad that it becomes the normal reaction for women, and even men, in this culture to reject outright any sense of societal responsibility for the strengthening of men.  You said it yourself - "the morality of a man is his own responsibility and no one else's".  That is contrary to the great commandment to LOVE OTHERS as yourself.  Feminism needs to DIE.

At least they are not as harsh in their statement as some churches. I heard there's this one where if you engage in polygamy they kick you out!

I think you've read to much psycobabble.
I dislike smoke, cigarettes, etc.  It's a nasty habit and filthy.  I don't go to places where smoke is and I do my best to just stay away from it. I have no problems with individuals who smoke, I'd just rather not be around the smell. Go smoke, that's fine no problem-but don't tell me it's healthy or leads to a happy lifestyle.
If everywhere I went, it was shoved into my face, made an example, if Church's came out and said we must have compassion for those who smoke, and if I was continually bombarded with a message of it's wonderful, if you don't associate with those who smoke you are an "evil" person, etc. etc. etc., then yes I would protest loudly and vigorously against it.
Change smoke to homosexuality and there you have it.  I quite frankly am sick and tired of being bombarded with all this messages that it's so wonderful and that we should just have compassion.  I don't really care what people do with their life, go be homosexual and go destroy your life-no skin off my back.  But stop trying to tell me that because I stand up for what is true (i.e. homosexuality is a evil sin, people can change through Christ can overcome their worst sins), that I'm the one who is messed up.  Stop telling me that the reason your (as in the homosexuals) life is so messed up is because I don't "accept" you.  Whatever, stop being a drama queen, grow up, learn to become responsible for your own life.  You have a messed up life, you have mental problems, own up to it and recognize your own faults in it. Maybe, just maybe you should try to overcome all your sins rather than just the ones you think are sins.
Yes, I will pushback quite hard on that.

I think you've read to much psycobabble.
I dislike smoke, cigarettes, etc.  It's a nasty habit and filthy.  I don't go to places where smoke is and I do my best to just stay away from it. I have no problems with individuals who smoke, I'd just rather not be around the smell. Go smoke, that's fine no problem-but don't tell me it's healthy or leads to a happy lifestyle.
If everywhere I went, it was shoved into my face, made an example, if Church's came out and said we must have compassion for those who smoke, and if I was continually bombarded with a message of it's wonderful, if you don't associate with those who smoke you are an "evil" person, etc. etc. etc., then yes I would protest loudly and vigorously against it.
Change smoke to homosexuality and there you have it.  I quite frankly am sick and tired of being bombarded with all this messages that it's so wonderful and that we should just have compassion.  I don't really care what people do with their life, go be homosexual and go destroy your life-no skin off my back.  But stop trying to tell me that because I stand up for what is true (i.e. homosexuality is a evil sin, people can change through Christ can overcome their worst sins), that I'm the one who is messed up.  Stop telling me that the reason your (as in the homosexuals) life is so messed up is because I don't "accept" you.  Whatever, stop being a drama queen, grow up, learn to become responsible for your own life.  You have a messed up life, you have mental problems, own up to it and recognize your own faults in it. Maybe, just maybe you should try to overcome all your sins rather than just the ones you think are sins.
Yes, I will pushback quite hard on that.

I chalk it up to an age before "Gender Studies".  You know, that age when we were still free to point out the obvious differences between male and female.  You know... that men are generally visually aroused while women are generally emotionally aroused?  That.
In today's day and age it became so... pooh pooh'd to point out that fact that a Church teaching that alludes to this basic differences in males and females becomes ohhh sooo bad!
It is a statistical FACT.  Women display their cleavage - big or small, black or white, fat or skinny, rich or poor - because men are attracted to the physical female.  It's a biological natural man response.  A man displaying his body attributes don't attract women in the same manner.  A woman is not attracted to a man's abs because it's a part of the male body.  Women are attracted to a man's abs because of it's implication of strength.  So you don't hear too much of this - help women bridle their loins by keeping your abs covered as much.
So yes.  The teaching is entirely appropriate unless you work hard to eliminate gender differences in society.  You know, like this:
 

Ah, this is refreshing. Saying it like it is. Preach!
Bingo. The hyper-individualism taught by modern culture doesn't mix so well with teachings of "love each other and be mindful of their weaknesses", does it?
Yes, my ultra-strict uncle judges me when I wear a button-up shirt of the wrong color (i.e. not white) to church. As someone who doesn't sit on the stand, nor serve the sacrament, I don't really think it should matter what color of shirt I wear. That said, I now choose to only wear white shirts to church so as not to offend/distract others sitting in sacrament meeting. It's not just about me, it's also about who will be seeing me and what I'm wearing.
In all seriousness, perhaps you'd be surprised how many people think "modest clothing" (by church standards) "looks weird at venue X". Sometimes we don't like what the church teaches - in those cases it's up to us to do careful introspection about submitting our will to God's.

How about the guy who pleads with his children not to use drugs? Is he necessarily, or even often, someone who secretly really wants to use drugs? How about the woman who finds nudism repulsive? Does she secretly want to take it all off in public?
In general, I prefer to take people's expressions of belief at face value unless there is good reason not to do so. I understand the revulsion at the very idea of homosexual relations, so I see no reason to assume that all, or most, or even a large minority of those who voice such revulsion are secretly harboring illicit desires, any more than people who scream about how awful Mormonism is secretly just want to be baptized.

Truths concerning principles of change, choice, perfection, and corruption.
I can't specifically give you a list of everyone who is buying into lies concerning these principles, nor can I say that I have a complete understanding of truth myself (and that, therefore, I don't belong on that list). What I can say is that there are principles that are being taught now that seem to contradict other principles I have been taught and still believe.
I am.

I feel quite confident that having a year's supply of food was never an eternal truth.

My apologies; I did not say homosexual marriage (you inferred that is what I meant, but that is not what I meant), I should have been more explicit in my words.
Waffling on the issues of homosexuality. If you do not see the Church waffling on homosexuality then you ain't looking close enough.  Read GC talks about this issues 20 years ago, read books written 20 years ago (go back even 10 years ago).  The Church's stance then was different than it is today.  Look at mormonandgays vs. what was written just a few years ago in my lifetime, look at the videos the Church produces today.  Yes the Church has softened it's stance on homosexuality. Unless and until it hardens it's stance back up, these questions will arise.
It's a very, very logical thing.  I don't agree with those who advocate for homosexual marriage in the Church-but their arguments have some reasoning behind it.
It goes like this: Since simply having SSA is not a sin and it is something you are born with, why would God ever deny the ultimate blessings in this life to someone who is supposedly otherwise a healthy, happy, righteous individual.  How could a loving God deny those blessings to a child and therefore the Church must be in error and it's current "policy" is wrong and will one day go away like blacks not having the Priesthood.
I don't agree with this line of reasoning, but unless one fervently believes that homosexual acts are sinful then it does hold some logic.  Now couple this with the endorsement of a homosexual concert, add in openly celibate homosexual members serving in callings, add in YW making pride bracelets (as was described in another thread), add all of those things together, add in temple recommend holders going to, participating in and celebrating homosexual weddings, etc, etc, etc. and is it any wonder that people ask questions like, "why can't married homosexuals get baptized".
Currently, the policy is SSA isn't a sin but "acting on it" is . . .well what exactly does "acting on it" mean?  The eye is in the beholder. Does it mean I can be a faithful member as long as I don't commit sodomy? Does it mean I can openly advocate that I'm homosexual? Does it include holding hands, what about dwelling on it?
My opinion is acting on it is anything that gives it expression-thinking sexual thoughts about another member of the same sex is acting on it.  This used to be common place knowledge and when counseling or disciplining those involved in homosexuality these things were brought up.  Now, it's immutable, it's fixed, your homosexual and that's it and how dare!!! anyone say to you this is something to be overcome.
But today, the Church leaves "acting on it" up to the individual.  I can be homosexual, indulge sexual feelings to a member of the same sex and I'm still good.
I'll get blasted for this as hate . . . whatever.
I'll give a quick example, If I'm an alcoholic, I don't go to Church tell everyone hey guys "I'm an alcoholic!!!" but I can still hold callings b/c I don't drink. I might say (in a private setting or at special moments) "at times in past I've had problems with alcohol, but through Christ, I've been able to overcome them".
But today in the Church openly homosexual members say "I'm homosexual!!!" but I can still hold callings b/c I don't break the LoC.
It's a difference in attitude and the attitude of the Church and members of the Church is shifting to become more accepting of the sin-that is a fact.
It will continue sliding until at some point the hammer is dropped and when that happens I think you will see plenty of people in the Church leave.

To me, this is the most compelling argument, and I think it's the crux of the matter. Do we honor our covenants with God? If so, let the chips fall where they may. Not an easy rule by any means, but simple.

Nothing . .. except that there are forces arrayed to change the definition of sin. No need to stop sinning if the act is no longer a sin.
Last days, Grunt, last days.  Good will be called evil and evil will be called good.

Indeed our words do matter... So that one woman needs to be held accountable for saying what she did... but it is a huge leap in to the absurd for posters to claim that "every" woman is like that. 

I'm not sure what the issue is, and as one of the unwashed is there something more complicated that I'm missing?   It seems blatantly obvious to me as a heathen.  
Committing sin and unrepentant and/or willfully disobeying God equals no baptism.  
Follwing the will of God and obeying the church rules equals baptism should you choose it. 
Anyone can attend and even participate to a decent degree, but baptism requires a covenant with God.  
What am I missing?

I do agree with this.  If the tables were turned and a husband said that he didn't love his wife oh the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Words matter.  It is a very cruel thing to say something like this to a spouse, regardless of what state one is in.  If one is "out of their mind" so to speak due to whatever influences, it is something that should be repented of and efforts made to ensure that actions demonstrate that the words weren't true. JMHO.

A&A, this is a ridiculously loaded question. I don't know if you intended it as such, but it is.
People openly engaged in sinful behavior (including a homosexual "marriage") are not baptized. A rose by any other name still smells as sweet, and calling a skunk "flower" doesn't make it smell like a rose. Homosexual "marriage" is an oxymoron, despite legal recognition of this fiction. Homosexual relations don't suddenly become acceptable and holy just because the state grants a license for them.

Well, since you ask...
I was born more than 50 years ago. From the earliest time I can remember, I have had it drilled into my skull that women are intelligent and capable, and that they should be believed. If a woman says she feels some way, you should take that at face value. A woman should be treated just exactly like a man, not condescended to and told that she doesn't really understand her own self.
I remember in my youth reading a public argument being carried on in the national press about women being integrated into the work force and being given "special privileges" -- things like time off for period-related issues and how they wouldn't be held responsible for their actions the same as men. The feminists argued long and loud about how bigoted that was (their word was "chauvanist"). They assured the public that women would never, ever be held to a lesser standard, and that "female matters" would never become a workplace issue or be used as an excuse for bad behavior.
That lasted until the legal system decided that women weren't responsible for criminal activity if suffering from period-related stress.
So here we have a woman who says she never loved her husband. Who are you to say she's wrong? What kind of hubris does it take to say, "No, she's just out of her mind because of her hormones/menstrual cycle/post-baby blues/hysteria issues/female personality"? Are women adults and agents, or are they not?
I say accept the woman at her word. She deserves no less. That doesn't mean get a divorce, game over. It does mean that words mean things, and people who use words must accept responsibility for using those words in something approximating reasonable accuracy. Whatever Dillon's excesses and hyperbole, this appears to be the root of what he's saying, and I agree with him (at least that part of it) 100%.