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

Agony In Ivory Tower

Published

4 days ago

March 9, 2026

The Tide

Quote: A university that tolerates missing scripts, result manipulation and ‘sorting’ is not merely failing students—it is quietly destroying the moral foundation of education itself.”

The sad cases of missing scripts, compulsory Sorting, inputting of wrong results and other obnoxious practices in some public universities, leave much to be desired. One cannot imagine how a student will be compelled to suffer consequences of the flagrant negligence of a Head of Department, a lecturer, Department staff or an ICT staff.Many academic and non academic staff in several public universities seem to be performing far below standard, thus unproductive to the university system. The unacceptable cases of sorting, missing scripts, missing results, inputting of wrong grades to students, should not be mentioned in a university, not even in any academic community. This is because people who are employed to work in various positions should have cognate work experience and unquestionable competence. They should not be seen as certificate welding illiterates but people who have been proven to be worthy in learning and character, diligent and competent to carry out assigned responsibilities with minimal or no supervision.

The university as a citadel of learning should boast of men of integrity, people who are repositories of applied knowledge and competence to drive the much desired holistic development in a nation that functions on quality teaching and learning. A situation where a student having gone through the crucibles of learning and written a prescribed semester examination or class-based evaluation test, is told that his or her script is missing or that he or she did not participate in that academic exercise, or must sort to pass, is an unpardonable error and a height of callousness. In fact some lecturers and staff of Departments are using the seeming systemic defect (which is their architecture) as an opportunity to extort students. Sometimes it is discovered much to students chagrin that the supposed missing script was later discovered when a ransom was paid.

Since a lecturer, or Head of Department has in their disposal both Yam and the knife and determines who takes what (if they wish to give without strings), students have no alternative but to submit to their importunate demands in order to graduate at record time.Such practices should be unheard of in an institution that should be a vanguard of moral and ethical values and conduct. What people learn in school constitute their behavioural patterns in the society. Where the school as an agency of socialisation cannot drive positive change first in its immediate environment, then the objective of education as a bedrock for the development of society, is inevitably compromised and counter-productive. The German Reformer, Dr. Martins Luther was quoted as saying, “I advise parents not to put their wards or children in any school where the Bible is not being used as a rule of life because such institutions will unnecessarily be corrupt”.

Gleaning from Luther’s sentiment one can deduce that the lack of respect and regard for values as well as the absence of the fear of God is the greatest undoing of most public schools. Another major challenge is that lack of Information, Communication and Technology literacy or compliance on the part of some lecturers and heads of department, may have informed the decision to give students’ scripts to secretaries to compile and input students results thereby making the secretaries the determinants of students’ fate. It is not saying a new thing that some of the secretaries in the process of compiling results have inputted wrong results, omitted names or down graded some students or given unmerited grades to others.Society today is ICT-driven and ICT-literacy enhances efficiency, speed and a reasonable degree of accuracy if the person behind the computer is level headed, articulate, competent, alive to responsibilities and is aware that negligence on his or her part is not only tantamount to a disservice to the university but to the students who may not graduate at record time because of his or her (computer operator’s) gross ineptitude or carelessness.

The ICT era makes the carrying of hard copy of results obsolete as lecturers through the Heads of Department can log on to the central server of the Exams and Records (if any) or ICT unit and input students’ results directly. By so doing the incessant cases where result on spread sheet is different from the one published online, more often than not, caused by abject negligence, will be avoided. The process will also end the intermediary services of some staff in the universities’ Information, Communication and Technology Department which has become a money spinner-a lucrative source of income to many of them. In fact some ICT staff reserved the power to award grades to students depending on students’ degree of compliance to terms and conditions. They can dubiously make or unmake a student. The university community should be considered too lofty to have careless, negligent, immoral and academic or professionally deficient people as academic or non-academic staff.

The Governing Councils and Senates of universities should be proactive in addressing the menace of missing Script, inputting of wrong results and sorting. This is necessary to end the slogan “Education is scam” so the system can produce quality students who are truly found worthy in learning and in character by operators who exemplify diligence, moral and ethical values. The much-needed reform must begin within the institutions themselves, because the future of any society is shaped in its classrooms.

By: Igbiki Benibo

Opinion

Strength of Emotional Equality

Published

4 days ago

March 9, 2026

The Tide

Quote: “Love thrives not when one gives more, but when both give fully — not in competition, not in performance, but in partnership.”

In every healthy relationship, there exists an invisible balance. It is not measured in grand gestures, expensive gifts, or public displays of affection. It is measured in something quieter and far more significant: emotional equality. When couples stand on equal emotional grounds, love becomes less of a negotiation and more of a partnership. Emotional equality does not mean both individuals express love in identical ways. It does not require matching personalities or mirroring temperaments. Rather, it speaks to balance — a shared willingness to invest, to communicate, to be vulnerable, and to grow. It is the difference between two people walking side by side and one person constantly trying to catch up.

In many relationships, imbalance begins subtly. One partner initiates most conversations. One apologizes more frequently. One carries the emotional labor — remembering important dates, managing conflicts, sensing tension, and attempting reconciliation. Over time, this uneven distribution of emotional effort breeds exhaustion. The partner who gives more begins to feel unseen. The one who gives less may grow comfortable in emotional passivity. Love, in such a space, starts to tilt — slowly at first, then significantly. Resentment can creep in quietly, disguising itself as patience. Silence may replace honest dialogue. What once felt effortless begins to feel heavy.

When couples stand on equal emotional grounds, responsibility is shared. Both people are accountable for the health of the relationship. If conflict arises, neither hides behind silence nor dominates through control. Instead, they engage. They listen. They speak honestly without weaponizing words. Equality creates safety — and safety strengthens intimacy. It allows both individuals to express needs without fear of ridicule or rejection. One of the most overlooked aspects of emotional equality is vulnerability. True connection requires courage. It demands that both partners risk being misunderstood. But when vulnerability is one-sided, it becomes exposure rather than intimacy. If one person consistently opens up while the other remains guarded, trust cannot fully deepen.

Equality ensures that emotional risks are mutual. Where one shares fears, the other shares too. Where one admits weakness, the other responds with openness rather than judgment. In such a space, authenticity flourishes. Another crucial element is validation. In emotionally balanced relationships, both partners feel heard. Their concerns are not dismissed as “overreactions.” Their feelings are not minimized or compared. When couples operate on equal emotional ground, they acknowledge each other’s experiences as legitimate. They may not always agree, but they always respect. Validation does not mean surrendering one’s viewpoint; it means recognizing that another’s emotional reality matters.

Equality also protects individuality. Contrary to popular belief, healthy love does not erase personal identity — it enhances it. When both partners are emotionally secure, they do not feel threatened by each other’s independence. Personal ambitions are encouraged, not resented. Friendships are respected, not restricted. Growth is celebrated, not feared. Standing on equal emotional grounds means neither person shrinks to accommodate the other. Instead, both expand, knowing the relationship is strong enough to hold their evolution. Power dynamics often expose emotional inequality. When one partner controls communication — appearing and disappearing unpredictably, withholding affection, or using silence as leverage — imbalance emerges.

Emotional dominance weakens intimacy. It creates anxiety instead of assurance. But when couples share emotional power, there is consistency. There is clarity. There is no need to decode affection because it is offered freely and intentionally. It is important to understand that equality does not imply perfection. Couples will still disagree. They will face stress, miscommunication, and moments of frustration. However, when emotional footing is equal, conflict does not threaten the foundation. Instead, it becomes an opportunity for understanding. Both partners approach challenges as teammates rather than opponents. They choose resolution over ego and repair over pride.

Time often reveals whether emotional equality truly exists. In the early stages of love, intensity can disguise imbalance. Enthusiasm feels mutual. Effort appears equal. But as routine settles in and novelty fades, the structure of the relationship becomes clearer. Who still initiates? Who still invests? Who still shows up consistently? Sustainable love requires sustained balance. It is built not merely on attraction, but on deliberate reciprocity. Standing on equal emotional grounds requires intentionality. It demands honest conversations about needs and expectations. It requires both partners to examine their habits — whether they withdraw during tension, avoid accountability, or rely on the other to carry the emotional weight. Emotional maturity is not about avoiding conflict; it is about handling it responsibly and returning, again and again, to shared ground.

Perhaps the greatest benefit of emotional equality is peace. There is no constant anxiety about where one stands. No guessing games about commitment. No fear that affection may suddenly disappear. Instead, there is stability. There is reassurance. There is mutual effort. In a world where relationships often blur the lines between attention and commitment, equality offers clarity. It reminds us that love should not feel like competition or performance. It should feel like partnership. When couples stand on equal emotional grounds, they build something resilient. They build trust that does not fracture easily. They build respect that does not depend on mood. They build a connection rooted not only in passion but in balance. And in that balance, love finds its strength — not in who gives more, but in how both give fully.

By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi

Opinion

NDDC: Time To Illuminate Homes

Published

2 weeks ago

March 2, 2026

The Tide

Quote:“Twenty-five years on, the Niger Delta cannot celebrate illuminated streets while families sit in darkness. Development must begin inside the home — where children study, businesses grow, and lives are built — before it glows on the roadside.”

The Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) was established in 2000 with a clear and urgent mandate: to facilitate the rapid, even, and sustainable development of Nigeria’s oil-producing Niger Delta region. The creation of the Commission followed decades of agitation over environmental degradation, infrastructural neglect, and socio-economic marginalization in the region. Its core mandate included the development of roads, bridges, electricity, water supply, health facilities, education, housing, environmental remediation, and economic empowerment initiatives. At inception, expectations were high that the Commission would transform the Niger Delta into a model of regional development. Over the years, the NDDC has indeed implemented numerous projects across the nine Niger Delta states. Roads have been constructed and rehabilitated in several communities, easing transportation challenges.

Schools have been renovated, and new classroom blocks have been provided in underserved areas. Health centres have been built or upgraded, improving access to primary healthcare services. The Commission has also awarded scholarships to students, including foreign postgraduate scholarships, empowering thousands of youths academically.Skills acquisition and youth empowerment programmes have helped many young people gain vocational competencies.Through various interventions, the NDDC has contributed to job creation and local economic stimulation.Solar-powered street lighting projects have been widely implemented in urban and semi-urban communities. These streetlights have improved visibility at night and contributed to enhanced security in some areas. Markets, highways, and public spaces illuminated by solar lights have experienced extended business hours.

For these efforts, the Commission deserves acknowledgment and commendation. However, development must always align with foundational mandates and pressing grassroots realities. A growing concern among residents is that while streets are illuminated, many homes remain in darkness. Rural electrification and household power access remain inconsistent and inadequate across large parts of the region. In riverine and remote communities, families still rely on generators, kerosene lamps, or complete darkness after sunset. The irony of brightly lit streets juxtaposed with powerless homes cannot be ignored. Electricity at the household level directly impacts education, health, and small-scale enterprise. Students cannot effectively study at night without reliable indoor lighting.Families cannot preserve food or power essential appliances without stable electricity.

Micro and small businesses struggle to grow without dependable energy access. While street lighting enhances public aesthetics and security, it does not substitute for domestic electrification. The proverb “charity begins at home” is especially relevant in this context. True community development must first empower households before beautifying public spaces. The Commission’s original mandate emphasizes integrated and sustainable development, not isolated infrastructural gestures. Balanced development requires that energy interventions prioritize homes alongside streets. Solar technology presents a unique opportunity for decentralized household electrification in off-grid communities. Extending solar solutions to individual homes would have a transformative social impact. Home-based solar systems could power lights, fans, small appliances, and communication devices.

Such interventions would reduce poverty, improve living standards, and stimulate grassroots productivity. By broadening its energy focus, the Commission would better reflect the spirit of its founding legislation. This is not a call to abandon street lighting projects, which have their merits. Rather, it is an appeal for balance, inclusivity, and alignment with core developmental objectives. Strategic planning should ensure that rural electrification and household access form a central pillar of ongoing interventions. Community engagement and needs assessments can help determine priority areas for household solar deployment. Twenty-five years after its establishment, the NDDC stands at a reflective moment in its institutional journey. The people of the Niger Delta say: thank you for the efforts so far—but not very much—because true appreciation will come when development begins at home and radiates outward, not merely when streets shine while houses remain in darkness.

By: King Onunwor