As President Bush was coming to the end of his State of the Union speech he started to touch on issues that made me feel like I was in some sort of Catholic or religious grade school. I thought I was dreaming when the President mentioned abstinence and writing into our Constitution the definition of marriage as between a man and woman.

Of course I always wondered why the gay community seems to always insist that they get the same things heterosexual couples have. Marriage has its roots in religious beliefs from various faiths. Three of these faiths (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) really do mandate that marriage be between a man and woman.

In fact the institution of marriage seems to have been set up to insure the creation of offspring and the continuance of lineages (at least one of the main reasons that marriage exist) which means that it was suppose to be between a man and woman.

I don’t see why the homosexual community would want to be a part of an institution that has its roots in faiths that insist that the marriage vows be between males and females (the ratio of male to females in a marriage vary culture to culture). I do not see why gays would want to infringe an this institution just to make people angry (as they do by insisting on being part of churches that follow holy books that prohibit certain types of behavior) when a mere change of the name would give the same rights and benefits.

I say the so-called ‘civil unions’ if they provide equal rights and benefits (same as those with marriage) should be enough for gay couples. I advise the gay community to avoid getting into conflicts with institutions that follow books that prohibit the behavior they practice or engage in. You should just seek equality under the law.

Having said this I believe it is a ridiculous idea to seek a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. It could possibly cause problems with civil unions between same sex couples and would just destroy the ideas of freedom that the Constitution embody when you tell some individuals you do not have the freedom to choose your lover(s).

The abstinence argument is really lame. Sure, I could think of many benefits to abstinence like avoiding sexually transmitted diseases, and unwanted childbirths. Lifelong abstinence may help reduce worldwide population growth, which would really help, but it is not practical.

Abstinence is definitely not practical to the people in the younger years. The human male is most virile at eighteen. People are most horny in their younger years. They spend their older years looking for potions and medical cures to regain the horniness of their younger years.

To be sexual is very human and very difficult to regulate. Policies that emphasize abstinence for young adults are largely unsuccessful and will probably always be unsuccessful.

If abstinence ever succeeds it will be because there is a lot of masturbation going on (then some will seek laws trying to outlaw that- come to think about it a lot of masturbation goes on even if a lot of intercourse occurs).

I think our Presidents should try to avoid moralizing to the American people as much as possible. The main moral lifting belongs to the parents and religious leaders. Leave it to the pros Mr. President.