Think Progress has the coverage of new rules for federal funding of abstinence only programs. Dan Savage is right, there's as much for heterosexuals to lose from these right wingers definitions of what is moral sexual conduct as for homosexuals.

Abstinence curricula must have a clear definition of sexual abstinence which must be consistent with the following: "Abstinence means voluntarily choosing not to engage in sexual activity until marriage. Sexual activity refers to any type of genital contact or sexual stimulation between two persons including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse."

Later, the guidelines explicitly define marriage:

Throughout the entire curriculum, the term "marriage" must be defined as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as a husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." (Consistent with Federal law)

So, no sex for gay people, no sex for straight unmarried people, no sex for anyone but those fitting the narrow definition of what the federal government says is ok. The alternative to marriages project has stats indicating about 9.7 million straight people are living with a different-sex partner and about 1.2 million same sex couples. These numbers have increased 10-fold since the 1960s and continue to incrase. Also, a majority of adult men and women in this country are unmarried, about 55-58%, and according to the DHHS, they should't have sex. Interesting. Such curricula don't seem to actually be helpful for preparing kids for the majority of adult relationships they are likely to get into.