Opinion

Should Christians Support Gay Marriage? (1)

Published

15 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

Professor Kamene Okonjo: A Life Beyond Motherhood

Published

6 days ago

November 2, 2026

The Tide

Quote “Professor Kamene Okonjo’s life was a testament to the power of scholarship, courage and service. Beyond raising a daughter who would attain global prominence, she distinguished herself as an accomplished sociologist, an advocate for women’s empowerment and a royal matriarch whose remarkable journey included surviving a kidnapping at 82. At 96, she leaves behind a legacy that transcends family ties and deserves enduring recognition.”

Some women leave behind more than a family name. They leave behind a legacy of intellectual accomplishment, courage, service and commitment to humanity that deserves to be celebrated long after their departure. Professor Kamene Okonjo, the renowned sociologist, women’s rights advocate and mother of Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Director-General of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), was one such woman. Professor Okonjo died on Friday, October 23, 2026, at the age of 96. Her death was announced on Sunday October 25, 2026 by the Umu Obi Obahai Royal Family of Ogwashi-Uku Kingdom in Delta State. Her passing has drawn tributes to a life distinguished by academic excellence, dedication to family, community service and the advancement of women.

Yet, to remember Professor Kamene Okonjo merely as the mother of one of Nigeria’s most internationally recognised women would be to tell only a part of her story. She was an accomplished academic whose contributions to sociology earned her recognition beyond Nigeria. Her lifelong interest in women’s rights and empowerment reflected a conviction that women deserved opportunities to develop their abilities and contribute meaningfully to society. Her life demonstrated that a woman could combine professional distinction with family responsibilities and traditional obligations without allowing one aspect of her identity to diminish the others. She occupied a place in the academic community while remaining a respected figure within the royal institution of Ogwashi-Uku.

Professor Okonjo was the beloved wife of the late Professor Chukwuka Okonjo, a distinguished scholar and former Obi of Ogwashi-Uku. Their marriage lasted 66 years, representing decades of companionship, family building and shared responsibilities. Together, they raised children who made their own contributions to society, including Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, who served as Nigeria’s Finance Minister before becoming the first woman and first African to lead the WTO. Her daughter’s international accomplishments have naturally brought additional attention to the family. However, the late professor’s own scholarly achievements and advocacy for women’s advancement deserve recognition in their own right. The achievements of children may bring honour to their parents, but they should never obscure the individual contributions of those parents.

one of the most dramatic chapters of her life occurred in december 2012, when she was 82 years old. On December 9, 2012, Professor Okonjo was kidnapped in Delta State, an incident that attracted national and international attention. Her abduction was particularly disturbing because of her advanced age and the public position occupied by her daughter, who was then serving as Nigeria’s Finance Minister under President Goodluck Jonathan. Reports at the time indicated that her abductors demanded a substantial ransom. The incident also generated widespread concern about insecurity in the Niger Delta and the vulnerability of citizens to kidnapping. For five days, the family endured uncertainty over her whereabouts and safety. The situation became a major national concern, with security agencies intensifying efforts to secure her release.

On December 14, 2012, the then Delta State Governor, Emmanuel Uduaghan, confirmed that Professor Okonjo had been released. According to reports, she was dropped off near her residence. The governor attributed her release to pressure from security operatives, although the precise circumstances surrounding the incident remained unclear. Her release brought relief to her family and the wider public. At 82, she had survived an ordeal that exposed the frightening reality of kidnapping in Nigeria. Her experience remains a reminder that insecurity does not discriminate by age, social standing or family background. Nearly 14 years later, Professor Okonjo’s death at 96 closes a remarkable chapter in the story of a woman whose life encompassed scholarship, motherhood, royal responsibilities and personal resilience.

She leaves behind children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, as well as a legacy that extends beyond her immediate family. The royal family described her as a woman of exceptional intellect, humility, compassion and grace. These qualities, alongside her academic achievements and commitment to women’s empowerment, form an important part of her enduring contribution. Her passing also offers an opportunity to reflect on the often-overlooked contributions of women whose influence may be overshadowed by the public achievements of their relatives. Behind many prominent Nigerians are parents, mentors and family members whose sacrifices, values and personal accomplishments helped shape their own journeys.

Professor Kamene Okonjo deserves to be remembered not simply because she was the mother of a globally influential woman, but because she was herself a scholar, an advocate and a woman who lived through extraordinary circumstances with dignity. At 96, she had completed a long journey marked by intellectual distinction, family devotion and service. Her story reminds younger generations that a meaningful life is measured not only by longevity or public recognition, but also by the knowledge imparted, the people encouraged and the causes advanced. As the Okonjo family and Ogwashi-Uku Kingdom mourn their matriarch, her life offers a fitting lesson: true legacies are built through years of purposeful living, and their influence continues long after their authors have departed. May her soul rest in perfect peace.

By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi

Opinion

On Ancestrial Worship: My Take

Published

6 days ago

November 2, 2026

The Tide

Quote: An African who invokes the spirits of his ancestors is branded an idolater, yet Christians invoke Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in prayer. Why is one tradition revered while the other is condemned?”

This is the concluding part of this story, published first in our October 30, 2026 edition.

… Given the fact that I was the chairman of the Sports Committee of Rivers State School of Basic Studies (SBS no Captain Elechi Amadi Polytechnic CEAP) and the Commissioner of Youths and Sports was billed to flag off the school games that day, I could not join them on the trip. It was in view of the above reality that I planned the return trip to Owerri for Wednesday. Resultantly, I asked them to keep the date since Chief Abasi was part of the process, knew the venue and had the details of the contract. They pulled off the short driveway and I waved them goodbye; I watched the beautiful and effervescent Auntie Alice, the diligent and organized Chief AM Abasi and the very dutiful driver roll out of the gates of SBS compound on the journey to Owerri.

At the end of the visit by the Honorable Commissioner and the hectic day of the flag off, I retired to my apartment. At about 7.30pm, the phone rang, I picked and it was the unmistakable voice of Chief Ranami Abah; he sounded relieved. In some excitement, he said “Ehe, Jason, you people are back”. I answered in the negative and explained why I did not travel with them. In a voice laden with worries, he narrated all the efforts he had made to reach them and wondered if I could Mr. Nwaorgu. Unfortunately, I only had Nwaorgu’s office number and didn’t know if he had a phone at home. I quickly drove to Chief’s house where his friends had gathered. HE Melford Okilo, HRH Ere, Dr. LongJohn etc. were there and thoughts went in every direction.

Back to my apartment, at about 1am, a dog barked in the direction of the school gate. In the stillness of the night, the bark echoed and reverberated across the campus. Shortly thereafter, another dog barked and then another and, in what came across as a relay, the barks came towards the direction of my area of the compound. As soon as the next-door neighbor’s dog stopped barking, there was an eerie sign of non-human presence in my bedroom. Christy, my spouse, sat up quickly in bed and nervously said “I can perceive Auntie Alice’s perform”. At that, I sat up immediately and having had OBE at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington DC in May 1975, I knew that consciousness survives the death of the human body. With the eerie presence coupled with Christy’s observation, I spoke thus: “Auntie Alice, you can see and hear us but we can neither see nor hear you.

Under normal circumstances, you should not see us the way we are now. You have left your body in what we refer to as death but you know that your spirit is still alive. By coming close to us, you could hurt us without meaning to. So, go on in your new setting. I promise to ensure that Chief gives you a befitting burial”. At that point, the air of strange presence cleared, the dog next door barked and the relay of barks commenced in reverse order until the dog at the gate barked. In total shock, Christy looked at me with wide eyes and, in Ogbia dialect, she nervously muttered a sentence that included a word that means “wizard”. By the way, Auntie Alice had visited me once and, in a very pensive mood, told me that she knows that she will die before Chief.

That all she asks is that Chief should give her a befitting burial. Christy and I sat frozen; it was obvious to us that Auntie Alice had died. What about Chief Abasi and the driver? Our thoughts went wild in every direction until we fell asleep. The next morning, Christy and I went to Chief’s house where his friends and relatives had gathered; the atmosphere was dreary and everybody wore a long face and talked In whispers. Christy and I knew something they didn’t but we kept it to ourselves. At about 8.30am, I put a call across to Mr. Nwaorgu and the chilling truth came out: Chief Abasi and Auntie Alice did not keep the appointment; not on Wednesday neither on Thursday. A search party, which Chief insisted on leading, set off on the route of the journey.

For some reason that I do not recollect now, I was not part of the party. As the search party found out, at Umuapu, the blue Peugeot 504 rammed into a stationery truck. Auntie Alice and Chief Abasi died on the spot; the driver, who survived the collision, died on the way to the hospital at Owerri. Today, I recollect vividly that throughout that experience, I did not pray to God or to Him through Jesus Christ not to talk of the Virgin Mary of Catholicism. This is not to say that I do not believe in God; I do without any reservation whatsoever. I even pride myself saying that I believe in God more that a majority of the Clergies and Clerics that abound in institutional religion. However, I consider the issue of Jesus being “the only begotten Son of God” through whom I must pray, as preposterous and anti-Christ.

I believe that everyone in humanity is directly connected to the Divine. Therefore, we do not need any intermediary, not the priest, Jesus, Imam or whoever to connect with the Source if only we keep clean this Temple of God, which our soul occupies for now. In the universality of the ministry of Jesus, he did not claim divinity and an object to be worshiped, NO!!! Rather, he gave humanity an effectual template through which to strive and achieve what he achieved and even more. Hear him “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do” (John 14:12) Osai and his son Lazarus heard my cry and, I believe, played a role in the mystery of the narrative; Auntie Alice listened to me and heeded my advice.

Our ancestors have not gone far from us. They exist in another dimension from which they see and influence our daily lives in this dimension in the multiplicity of dimensions in God’s creation. Metaphorically and allegorically, Jesus referred to this as “many mansions in my father’s house (John 14:2). My advise to the reader is thus: in your daily prayer to God, feel free to invoke the spirit of your ancestors; they are here with us and they know and understand our problems and feel for us much more than Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. With a clean heart, mind and hand; with absolute belief in God and with a spirit of gratitude and contentment you command your circumstance. “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear”.

By: Jason Osai

Opinion

FG’s Transport Support And Rivers Workers

Published

1 week ago

October 30, 2026

The Tide

The Federal Government’s approval of a N70,000 monthly transport intervention for public service workers for six months, beginning in November 2026, offers hope to employees struggling with the rising cost of living. The agreement with the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), reached at a conciliation meeting in Abuja on October 27, is intended to cushion transport costs and ease pressure on workers’ incomes. But for public servants in Rivers State, it raises a familiar question: will the State Government key into the intervention and ensure that its workers benefit? The agreement provides for N70,000 monthly across all levels, for six months. The Federal Government also approved peculiar allowance arrears effective from May 1, 2026, to be paid in three equal instalments beginning in November.
The parties agreed to reconvene after one month to assess implementation. Ultimately, the value of these resolutions will be measured not by announcements but by whether eligible workers receive the money. Transport costs consume a substantial share of many civil servants’ earnings before they can meet household needs. Support for commuting is therefore not a luxury or political favour; it is temporary assistance to help workers remain at their jobs without sinking further into hardship. For lower-paid employees, transport costs can turn modest salaries into a daily exercise in difficult choices and sacrifice.
The agreement also urges State and Local Governments to participate and unions to press for implementation. The federal agreement does not automatically guarantee that every State and Local Government employee will receive the support. State authorities must clarify how it will apply to their workforce, make the necessary arrangements and publish a payment timetable. Rivers State must approach the arrangement with urgency and transparency. The Government should State whether it will implement the intervention and when payments will begin. Any administrative or financial question should be addressed promptly with organised labour, not allowed to become excuses for delay.
The concern is sharpened by the earlier N35,000 monthly wage award introduced by the Federal Government in 2023 after petrol subsidy removal. It was intended as temporary relief pending a new national minimum wage. While several States negotiated and paid wage awards or related sums, implementation nationwide was uneven. Reports in 2024 indicated that many States had failed to pay the federal award, while others provided different amounts. In Rivers, labour and media reports raised concerns about implementation of the N35,000 award for State workers, amid separate announcements and arrangements concerning Local Government employees.
The wage award was meant to ease the immediate effects of subsidy removal, yet workers faced uncertainty over whether the promised relief would reach them. In February 2024, the Rivers State Government announced approval of the N35,000 award for local government workers, but subsequent reports showed that implementation across worker categories remained a concern. The lesson is clear: approval and implementation are not the same. A declaration at a meeting offers little comfort to a worker whose account does not reflect the promised payment. For workers who travel to their offices daily, the implications of delayed support are significant. Transportation expenses compete with food, rent, school fees, healthcare and other essential household needs.
As fares rise, employees may be forced to reduce spending on necessities or borrow to sustain their families. A timely transport intervention would therefore provide practical relief and demonstrate that government understands the economic pressures confronting its workforce. Its temporary nature makes prompt implementation even more important. It is fair to acknowledge that this transport intervention is a new agreement and that its administrative details may require clarification. Rivers State should not be condemned in advance for a failure that has not occurred. Nevertheless, the earlier experience gives workers legitimate grounds to seek assurances before the November commencement date. The State should avoid allowing uncertainty to persist until workers begin asking why the promised assistance has not arrived.
The NLC and unions in Rivers State should engage the State Government immediately and seek a written commitment, an implementation plan and a process for reporting missed payments. If clarification from the Federal Government is needed, the State should seek it without abandoning the goal of providing relief. Labour leaders must also keep members informed about progress and insist that any agreed arrangements are applied fairly and transparently. The Rivers State Government should treat this intervention as an opportunity to rebuild confidence. Timely support would show that workers’ welfare is more than a talking point and that the State recognises the economic realities confronting its employees.
Silence, delay or selective implementation, by contrast, would revive frustration over earlier relief measures and weaken trust between government and labour. Every month lost to administrative delay leaves workers facing the same transport burden without the intended assistance. The State should consult labour, publish arrangements and pay eligible workers on time. Rivers workers should not have to wonder whether federal relief will reach them. The Federal Government has announced the support; now the State must make its position clear. We hope the N70,000 monthly transport intervention will not follow the troubling path of the earlier wage award. Rivers State should learn from that experience and ensure that this time, relief is not merely promised but delivered.

Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi