Opinion

Should Christians Support Gay Marriage? (1)

Published

14 years ago

January 25, 2012

To answer this question, one must look to an external source for truth which is the Bible. Christians and non-Christians alike are made in the image of God says Genesis 1:26-27, 9:6.

Humankind surrendered their natural state (the image in which they were created) to worship themselves rather than God.

God’s intention was for sexual pleasure between a man and a woman in a monogamous marital relationship. It is also for reproductive purposes. Gay marriage contradicts what God intended. Genesis 2: 22-24 says “Then, the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called “woman,” for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”

God did not make man for man in this context, God made the woman for the man.

Writing on “A case against gay marriage”, Mark B. Blocher, President, Christian Worldview Concepts writes: “A large majority of Americans are opposed to “gay marriage”, but they often do not have the vocabulary to articulate reasons for their opposition”.

This white paper attempts to state the principal reasons to oppose gay marriage. The author’s hope is that pastors will use this material as talking and teaching points with their congregations.

Imagine thirty years ago, a pastor standing in his pulpit on Sunday morning, predicting that in 2004, the residents of the United States would have to propose passage of a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Most, if not all, of his congregation would have thought he was nuts. Yet, on February 25, 2004, former President George W. Bush did exactly that. He endorsed the passage of a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Prior to this, 38 States had taken legislative action to pass defense of marriage legislation to protect heterosexual marriage.

Many Christians are tempted to give up any resistance to the homosexual onslaught because it seems like a lost battle. When we consider the fact that majority of those who work in the mass media are in favour of gay marriage or same sex “domestic unions,” some people make every attempt to silence those who oppose their position. Even among Christian college students, there seems to be widespread support for “homosexual marriage”.

Pollster George Barna’s research published in November 2003, revealed that over 40 per cent believe that two committed homosexuals should be allowed to legally marry. Baylor University, a Southern Baptist school, saw their campus newspaper publish an editorial in favour of “homosexual marriage”. In an editorial in the Lariat, the editors said, “Like many heterosexual couples, many gay couples share deep bonds of love, some so strong they have persevered years of discrimination for their choice to co-habitate with and date one another. Just as it is not fair to discriminate against someone for their skin colour, heritage or religious beliefs, it is not fair to discriminate against someone for their sexual orientation. Shouldn’t gay couples be allowed to enjoy the benefits and happiness of marriage, too?”

Evidently, these editors have not read the Bible recently. The University’s administration denounced the editorial but has not disciplined the editors. Despite the backing of Hollywood and much of the national Press corps, Americans are largely opposed to homosexual marriage. In August 2003, an Associated Press poll found that 52 per cent favoured a law banning gay marriage.

Even the New York Times/CBS poll, conducted in December 2003, found that 61 per cent were opposed to gay marriage. In short, Christians should not be so quick to give up. Much of the American population is with us on this topic, regardless of what the Press tries to tell us. Despite decades of relentless propaganda in television programming, film, music and news coverage portraying homosexuality positively, Americans still have not accepted homosexuality as a normal behaviour.

Therefore, Christians should be more vigilant and confident in opposing attempts to mainstream gay marriage. There are a number of strong arguments to be made against the gay rights agenda, particularly its efforts to legalise gay marriage. However, Christians need to remember that taking a position against homosexual practices or homosexual marriage does not give one license to mistreat homosexuals. Regardless of a person’s actions, beliefs, etc., he still deserves to be treated with dignity since he was created in God’s image.

Homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue. Proponents of “homosexual marriage” argue that denying homosexuals the right to marry is a violation of their civil rights. They claim that just as it was wrong to prohibit blacks and whites from marrying, it is also wrong to bar homosexuals access to the rights and benefits of civil marriage.

For many years, state laws prevented interracial marriage, but the U. S. Supreme Court found these laws unconstitutional and in violation of the equal protection provisions of the constitution. Some gay rights activists make a similar argument for gay marriage, claiming that they are being discriminated against for being what nature has made them. They cannot help being homosexual any more than a black can help being black. In short, homosexuals claim that sodomy is a natural occurring act that should be protected by law in a manner similar to the legal protections afforded race.

However, skin colour and sexual behaviour are entirely different. The first is an inborn characteristic, while the second is behaviourally based and has everything to do with individual character, moral choices and society’s basic rules of conduct. If civil rights laws can be used to justify the behaviours of homosexuals, there is virtually no place to stop. New laws would need to be passed on a daily basis to accommodate the claims of smokers, gamblers, pornography addicts, etc. Activists react strongly to the contention that homosexuality is contrary to nature. Yet, the scientific evidence is stacked against them.

No reputable scientific research supports the claim that homosexuality is a naturally occurring condition. The medical literature is devoid of peer-reviewed research supporting the claim that homosexuality is biological. Some gay rights activists acknowledge that homosexuality is not natural, but intend to press for legalisation of same sex marriage anyway. Organizations such as Better Humans contend that we should not let what is “natural” define our social values. Instead, they contend that we should deploy reason over nature, refusing to submit to what is natural.

As one activist puts it, “Just because heterosexual marriage has been the only form of marriage recognised for the last two thousand years is no reason to not change it.” Some people who subscribe to transhumanism, which is a permutation of humanism, claim that we must reject the so-called natural order to improve humanity and that we should do what is “reasonable,” not what is natural. However, this refusal to accept the norms of nature notwithstanding, there are certain facts of life that must be recognised. Social features are open to change. Inherent, natural ones are not.

Marriage, like many important social institutions, is a combination of natural reality (the biology of procreation) and social contract (the culture that nurtures and supports procreation).

Transhumanists may truly believe that medical technology may one day remove the obstacles to same sex procreation. May be. But this technological Tower of Babel will not eradicate other significant gender-specific features of heterosexual procreation and marriage. Scripture condemns homosexual practice. First, it is not necessary to condemn people who have homosexual “desires” any more than we should condemn those who have heterosexual desires.

Dr Akpogena, a Christian writer, lives in Port Harcourt.

Lewis Akpogena

Opinion

Monthly Environmental Sanitation Imperative

Published

3 days ago

May 18, 2026

The Tide

Quote: “A clean environment is not a government gift; it is a civic duty that protects our health, preserves our cities, and reflects our national character.”

For many Nigerians who grew up in the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s, the last Saturday of every month followed a familiar pattern. Roads were deserted, markets closed, and residents swept compounds, cleared gutters, cut overgrown weeds, and disposed off refuse. The monthly environmental sanitation exercise became a national ritual that promoted cleanliness, discipline, and civic responsibility. As an environment correspondent about two decades ago, I joined officials of the Rivers State Ministry of Environment on sanitation monitoring tours across Port Harcourt and surrounding communities. Although enforcement officers were sometimes accused of excesses, the exercise succeeded in creating public awareness about the importance of keeping our surroundings clean. Over time, however, the practice faded away in many states.

In its absence, indiscriminate dumping of refuse, blocked drainages and environmental neglect became increasingly common. Today, heaps of waste line roads, markets and motor parks, while gutters clogged with plastics contribute to perennial flooding. Given the mounting environmental challenges facing Nigerian cities, there is no better time to revive environmental sanitation. Its return is no longer a matter of nostalgia; it is a practical necessity for public health, environmental safety, and sustainable development. Poor sanitation remains a major cause of disease. Stagnant water and uncollected waste create breeding grounds for mosquitoes, flies and rodents, increasing the risk of malaria, cholera, typhoid and other infections. Floodwaters contaminated by refuse also expose communities to serious health hazards.

Rapid urbanisation has worsened the situation. Cities such as Lagos, Port Harcourt and Abuja are expanding faster than their waste management systems can cope. As populations grow, so does the volume of waste generated daily. Monthly sanitation exercises can help rebuild environmental consciousness. Beyond cleaning streets, they remind citizens that environmental cleanliness is a shared responsibility. They also offer an opportunity to educate children and young people about hygiene, public health and community participation. Critics argue that the old sanitation policy restricted movement and was sometimes abused by security personnel. Those concerns were valid, but they do not invalidate the concept itself. Rather than abandon it, governments should reform the programme to make it more humane, participatory and transparent.

That is why the recent decision by the Lagos State Government to reintroduce monthly sanitation deserves commendation. Even if participation is largely voluntary, the move sends a strong signal that environmental responsibility must be taken seriously. Other states should emulate this initiative. In Rivers State, the Rivers State Waste Management Agency has intensified efforts to improve waste collection and restore Port Harcourt’s reputation as the Garden City. Reintroducing monthly sanitation would complement these efforts and deepen public involvement. At the federal level, policies such as the Digital Waste Marketplace, the Plastic Waste Policy and the National Waste Management Network are commendable. However, environmental sanitation remains one of the most direct and visible ways to mobilise citizens toward cleaner communities.

The exercise, however, must be supported by efficient waste management infrastructure. Citizens cannot be expected to maintain clean surroundings if there are inadequate waste bins, irregular refuse collection, and limited recycling facilities. Governments at all levels should invest in modern waste management systems, properly fund sanitation agencies, and promote recycling programmes. Waste sorting should become standard practice to reduce the volume of refuse ending up in landfills and drainage channels. Countries such as Singapore, Sweden and South Korea have demonstrated that waste can become a valuable economic resource. Recycling industries in these countries create jobs while protecting the environment. Nigeria can adopt similar strategies and turn waste into wealth.

Environmental laws must also be enforced consistently. Regulations against illegal dumping exist in many states but are rarely implemented. Offenders should face penalties, but enforcement must be fair and free from extortion. Urban planning is another critical factor. Poor drainage systems, overcrowding and inadequate sewage infrastructure worsen sanitation problems. Governments must prioritise road construction, drainage maintenance and orderly urban development. Markets deserve particular attention. They generate enormous quantities of waste every day, yet many lack organised disposal systems. Local councils and market associations should work together to establish effective waste collection arrangements in commercial centres. Religious institutions, schools, traditional rulers and civil society groups also have important roles to play.

Environmental responsibility should be taught and reinforced as a social value. Community leaders can help change attitudes by consistently promoting cleaner habits. This issue is even more urgent in an era of climate change. Flooding, erosion and extreme weather events are already threatening many Nigerian communities. Poor waste disposal worsens these challenges by blocking waterways and reducing urban resilience. A clean environment also offers economic benefits. Well-maintained cities attract investors, tourists and businesses. Reduced disease outbreaks lower healthcare costs and improve productivity among workers and students. More importantly, cleanliness reflects national values. A nation that allows public spaces to deteriorate projects an image of disorder and neglect. Nigerians deserve cleaner streets, healthier neighbourhoods and safer communities.

Reviving environmental sanitation will not solve all environmental problems overnight, but it can serve as a powerful starting point. Combined with effective waste management, public education and stronger infrastructure, it can restore environmental consciousness across the country. Ultimately, environmental cleanliness is a shared responsibility. Government must provide leadership, infrastructure and enforcement, while citizens must demonstrate discipline and civic commitment. From disposing of household waste properly to keeping drains free of obstruction, every Nigerian has a role to play. If Nigeria is serious about protecting public health, reducing flooding and building livable cities, the return of monthly environmental sanitation is a step whose time has come.

By: Calista Ezeaku

Opinion

God’s Intentionality in Ecological System

Published

3 days ago

May 18, 2026

The Tide

Quote:”Every component of creation is interdependent, demonstrating that God designed nature as a balanced system in which each part contributes to the wellbeing of the whole”.

From the very first chapter of Scripture, the Bible presents a profound truth: creation was not accidental, random, or without meaning. The universe emerged from the deliberate counsel of an all-wise God who fashioned every aspect of life with purpose and precision. The heavens were stretched out by His command, the earth was carefully positioned, the seas were bounded, and every living creature was assigned a distinct role within a perfectly coordinated ecological system. When God surveyed His completed work, He pronounced it “very good,” affirming that creation was whole, harmonious, and exactly as He intended. The natural world remains a visible testimony to God’s intentionality. The sun provides warmth and energy at the right intensity to sustain life. The moon governs tides and seasons. Trees absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen.

Rivers irrigate the land and quench thirst. Bees and butterflies pollinate crops. Birds disperse seeds. Animals maintain biodiversity. Every component of creation is interdependent, demonstrating that God designed nature as a balanced system in which each part contributes to the wellbeing of the whole. Nothing was made without significance, and nothing was left to chance. Among all created beings, humanity occupies a unique and privileged position. Unlike plants and animals, man was created in the image and likeness of God. This divine imprint endowed human beings with intelligence, moral consciousness, creativity, and the capacity for relationship with their maker. It also established mankind as the steward of creation. God granted humanity dominion over the earth, not as a license for reckless exploitation, but as a sacred trust to cultivate, protect, and preserve the world He had declared good.

Dominion, in God’s original intention, was to be exercised with wisdom, compassion, and responsibility. Human beings were meant to care for the land, use natural resources judiciously, and ensure that all forms of life flourished in accordance with divine order. The earth was to be managed as a trust from God, not plundered for selfish gain. Unfortunately, this divine mandate has been grossly misunderstood and widely abused. It is deeply regrettable that man has deviated so drastically from God’s original intention. Instead of stewardship, humanity has too often embraced greed. Instead of preservation, there has been exploitation. Instead of gratitude to the Creator, there has been reckless consumption and abuse of the environment. Across the world, forests are felled indiscriminately, rivers are contaminated, and fertile lands are stripped of their productivity.

Species disappear as habitats are destroyed. Air pollution threatens public health, and climate change disrupts weather patterns and livelihoods. What God created as a life-supporting ecosystem is increasingly treated as a disposable commodity. In Nigeria, the consequences are especially painful. Oil spills in the Niger Delta have devastated farmlands, poisoned rivers, and destroyed fishing communities. Poor waste management clogs drains and contributes to flooding. Erosion eats away homes and roads. Illegal mining and logging scar the landscape. In many cases, communities suffer while those responsible evade justice. At the root of much of this destruction is corruption. Funds earmarked for environmental protection, sanitation, and erosion control are often diverted for personal enrichment. Regulatory agencies are compromised through bribery.

Powerful individuals and corporations place profit above human welfare. Corruption thus becomes not only a moral failure but an assault on God’s creation. This environmental abuse is also a tragic expression of man’s inhumanity to man. When water is polluted, children fall sick. When farmlands are destroyed, farmers lose their means of survival. When rivers are contaminated, fishermen are plunged into poverty. When floods and erosion displace families, communities are torn apart. The burden of environmental degradation falls most heavily on the poor and vulnerable, while future generations inherit a diminished world. Yet, despite humanity’s failures, there remains hope for restoration. God’s purpose for creation has not changed. He still calls His people to responsible stewardship and righteous living. When individuals and nations return to God’s principles, they begin to view the earth not as an object to exploit, but as a sacred trust to preserve.

Responsible stewardship means protecting natural resources, planting trees, reducing pollution, disposing of waste properly, enforcing environmental laws, rejecting corruption, and treating others with justice and compassion. It requires governments to act with integrity, businesses to operate ethically, faith communities to teach creation care, and citizens to take personal responsibility for the environment. Creation care is therefore more than an environmental concern; it is a spiritual obligation. Our treatment of the earth and of one another reflects the sincerity of our reverence for God. To exploit nature, oppress the vulnerable, and enrich ourselves through corruption is to rebel against His purpose. To protect creation and uphold justice is to honor the Creator and participate in His original design. The world God made was declared “very good.” It is our solemn duty to ensure that our actions preserve rather than destroy that goodness.

By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi

Opinion

Confronting National Development In Chinese Style

Published

1 week ago

May 13, 2026

The Tide

Quote: “China’s rise was not a miracle. It was the result of deliberate planning, disciplined execution, and a national determination to make poverty reduction the foundation of national development.”

A short TikTok video by @ancientchinaforever recently offered a compelling summary of China’s remarkable transformation from one of the world’s poorest nations to a global economic powerhouse. In just a few minutes, it captured a lesson that developing countries like Nigeria cannot afford to ignore: meaningful development does not happen by chance. It is the product of vision, consistency, and a deliberate commitment to confronting poverty. In 1981, according to the World Bank, nearly 88 percent of China’s population lived in extreme poverty. The country was overwhelmingly rural, industrially weak, and lacking in modern infrastructure. Millions of people had limited access to quality healthcare, education, and basic social services. Yet China refused to accept poverty as its destiny. Its leaders made a strategic decision to treat poverty reduction as the starting point of national development.

Rather than relying on slogans or isolated welfare programmes, they created a coordinated system that mobilised government institutions at every level toward one overriding goal: improving the living conditions of ordinary citizens.

This was the turning point in China’s history. Poverty alleviation became a national mission. Clear targets were established, responsibilities were assigned to provincial and local governments, and officials were evaluated based on measurable results. Data was used to identify poor households, monitor progress, and adjust strategies where necessary.In effect, China built what may be described as a national development machine.The first major reforms focused on agriculture. Through the household responsibility system, farmers were given greater control over their land and allowed to sell surplus produce after meeting government quotas.

This policy created incentives for productivity and innovation. The results were dramatic. Agricultural output rose significantly, rural incomes increased, and millions were lifted out of poverty.With food security improving, China turned to industrialisation. The government established Special Economic Zones, most notably in Shenzhen, to attract foreign investment and promote export-driven manufacturing. What was once a small fishing community quickly transformed into one of the world’s leading industrial and technology hubs. Factories created millions of jobs, drawing workers from rural areas into expanding urban centres. China soon became the manufacturing capital of the world, producing electronics, textiles, machinery, and consumer goods for global markets.The revenue generated from industrial growth was reinvested in infrastructure and human development.

China understood that development requires more than factories. It demands modern infrastructure that connects people, goods, and markets. Massive investments were made in roads, railways, airports, seaports, electricity, and telecommunications.

Today, China’s high-speed rail system, modern cities, and efficient logistics networks stand as visible proof of decades of purposeful investment. Equally important was China’s commitment to education and healthcare.Schools were expanded, literacy improved, and vocational training equipped workers with the skills needed in a modern economy. Healthcare reforms reduced preventable diseases and protected families from being pushed deeper into poverty by medical costs.These investments ensured that economic growth translated into tangible improvements in living standards.

Another defining feature of China’s development model was policy continuity. Through successive Five-Year Plans, national priorities were clearly outlined and pursued over decades. While leaders changed, the core development agenda remained consistent. This stability encouraged investment, strengthened institutions, and allowed long-term projects to be completed. Unlike countries where each administration abandons the policies of its predecessor, China sustained a clear sense of direction.The results have been extraordinary. According to the World Bank, China has lifted more than 800 million people out of extreme poverty—the largest poverty reduction effort in human history. A broad middle class has emerged, and the country has become the world’s second-largest economy. Chinese companies such as Huawei Technologies and Alibaba Group now compete at the forefront of global innovation.

China’s journey has not been without challenges. Rapid industrialisation has contributed to environmental degradation, regional disparities, and demographic pressures. However, these challenges do not diminish the scale of its achievement. They underscore the complexity of transforming a nation of over one billion people. For Nigeria, China’s experience offers valuable lessons. First, poverty reduction must be treated as a strategic national priority rather than a campaign promise. Second, development requires long-term planning and policy continuity. Third, sustained investment in agriculture, infrastructure, education, and healthcare is essential. Fourth, institutions must be strengthened to ensure accountability and measurable outcomes. Finally, leadership must combine vision with disciplined execution. Nigeria is richly endowed with natural resources, entrepreneurial talent, and a youthful population.

What remains missing is a coherent and consistent development strategy that places national interest above politics. China’s transformation demonstrates that development is not a matter of luck. It is the outcome of clear priorities, effective institutions, and unwavering commitment. For countries still grappling with poverty and underdevelopment, China stands as compelling proof that when a nation confronts its challenges with strategic intent and collective discipline, extraordinary progress is possible.

Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi