I write in reference to The Gleaner editorial of August 20 titled 'Waite anti-gay populist nonsense.' I was disappointed with the editorial for two fundamental reasons:

1. It sought to highlight the secondary to the exclusion of the primary point being made by the shadow education minister, Basil Waite, who was right in reinforcing the need for the nation to give absolute clarity in defining the 'preferred family structure'.

The point is reasonable and valid given world trends, which suggest preferred alternative options. Why does the editorial writer find that obnoxious when 99.9 per cent of our nation support this structure? The evidence is clear that 99 per cent of the world also believes this. The strongest and best family model, from a social, economic and moral perspective, is the union between a man and a woman with a child/ children who can be adequately supported by that family's particular economic status. This is not a religious, anti-gay, bigoted statement; it is simply a statement of fact.

2. It is misleading to suggest that Waite's statement or the prime minister's "Not in my Cabinet!" statement is a desire to "send the State on a voyeuristic expedition into people's bedrooms". I doubt there would be anything of value to discover there. Our society needs constant affirmation of what we believe amid the contending promoted options. Any alternative lifestyle is a preference, a choice (albeit a bad one), and not mitigated by birth, as some would have us to believe.

Positive relationships

The editorial writer, like so many so-called 'modern thinkers', grounds his views, opi-nions and the determination of right and wrong in personal beliefs and not on any external source. Positive relationships on which healthy, successful societies are built are based on moral, time-tested, proven principles that predate and will outlive the brief lifespan of the editorial writer or modern thinkers. They seek to attempt to shift standards of morality, to conform to weaknesses, lack of self-control and self-indulgence of passion in the name of modernity.

On this issue and many others, like capital punishment, too many persons are prepared to lower the standard to suit the conditions, rather than maintaining the standard and fixing the conditions.

No society can survive for long without a clear moral code to guide it. The code cannot be determined by changing feelings or opinions of what is convenient to individual from time to time.

modern sophistication

The editorial suggests that the biblical and proven, time-tested principles are "backward" and not "befitting rational modern sophistication". If we examine the societies that have locked into the edito-rial's modern sophistication, for example Amsterdam, Britain, France and many states of the United States, it will be evident that there is a deterioration of social order: increasing breakdown of the family; relationship failure; increased need for psychological and psychiatric counselling; out-of-control children; increased addictions of various kinds; lonely, impersonal, self-serving, self-indulgent communities; suicide on the rise, etc.

The 'modern sophistication' has proven to be a dismal failure among those who have tried it, hence they are now seeking solutions to the immense growing social and economic crisis it has produced. Notice that the world that 'modern sophistication' has produced is reeling from its 'social convulsions' and as a result, is now calling for character and values at all levels of society, as it searches for answers to correct the social dilemma.

Some of us are humble enough to recognise that right and wrong cannot rest with us but in a perfect, all-wise Creator, who sets the standard and has not been proven wrong yet. Modernity does not shift the laws of nature and science, etc; neither can they try to shift the spiritual and moral laws and not suffer from it.

Sorry, but Waite is not the problem here. He is clearly humble enough to acknowledge the proven, time-tested moral and natural law, that a family is a man and woman, not woman and woman, or man and man. He is merely and correctly suggesting to 'rational modern sophistication' and affirming the obvious as the preferred position than to tinker with the probability of a man and man, or woman and woman creating children. The continuation of the human species hinges on as many of us as possible understanding the preferred structure and aligning our lifestyle accordingly. I am, however, sure, that a 'rational modern sophistication' system would work well as a population-reduction and human-extinction mechanism.

The editorial said: "It is nonsense to maintain archaic laws against homosexua-lity. It is not as if people become gay by contagion." Be informed that people become gay by socialisation that teaches the acceptance of that lifestyle as normal and acceptable; by molestation and other psychosocial factors; and, to my know-ledge and experience, by spiritual factors (not often mentioned). They are certainly not genetically so designed by the Divine Creator. This position continues to be pro-pagated by leaders of the 'gay community'.

But what are the facts?

homosexuality

When gay-gene researcher Dr Dean Hamer was asked if homosexuality was rooted in biology, he replied: "Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors, not negate the psychosocial factors."

William Byne, a psychiatrist with a doctorate in biology, and Bruce Parsons (1993) carefully analysed all major biological studies of homosexuality. They found none that definitely supported a biological theory of causation.

I congratulate Senators Waite and Newby for declaring and supporting the need for the family to be clarified and advanced.

Al Miller is pastor of Fellowship Tabernacle, St Andrew.