Connect with us

Opinion

Should Christians Support Gay Marriage? (1)

Published

on

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

Continue Reading

Opinion

Kudos  Gov Fubara

Published

on

Please permit me to use this medium to appreciate our able governor, Siminalayi Fubara for the inauguration of the 14.2-kilometre Obodhi–Ozochi Road in Ahoada-East Local Government Area.  This inauguration marks a significant milestone in the history of our communities and deserves commendation. We, the people of Ozochi, are particularly happy because this project has brought long-awaited relief after years of isolation and hardship.
The expression of our traditional ruler, His Royal Highness, Eze Prince Ike Ehie, JP, during the inauguration captured the joy of our people.  He said, “our isolation is over.”  That reflects the profound impact of this road on daily life, economic activities, and social integration of the people of Ozochi and other neighbouring communities. The road will no doubt ease transportation, improve access to markets and healthcare, and strengthen links between Ahoada, Omoku, and other parts of Rivers State.
The people of Ahoada, Omoku, and indeed Rivers State as a whole are grateful to our dear governor for this laudable achievement and wish him many more successful years in office. We pray that God endows him with more wisdom and strength to continue to pilot the affairs of the state for the benefit of all. As citizens, we should rally behind the governor and support his development agenda. Our politicians and stakeholders should embrace peace and cooperation, as no meaningful progress can be achieved in an atmosphere of conflict. Sustainable development in the state can only thrive where peace prevails.
Samuel Ebiye
Continue Reading

Opinion

… And It Came To Pass

Published

on

Quote:“Leadership is not measured by how hard one strikes back, but by how steady one remains under provocation.”
Tell it  in Rivers State, publish it  in the streets of Port Harcourt, so  the daughters of the State could rejoice, and the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph and know that Fubara is not vindictive”. And it came to pass that Rivers State emerged from one of the most delicate chapters in its political journey, the period of emergency rule that spanned from March 18 to September 18, 2025. It was a season that tested institutions, strained loyalties, and exposed the fragile balance between power and principle. During that time, the suspended Governor, Sir Siminalayi Fubara DSSRS, was widely believed to have suffered not only political setbacks but personal betrayal, allegedly from some top civil servants within the state apparatus. These were individuals expected to uphold neutrality and professionalism, yet were accused in public opinion of taking sides against the very government they served.
As the emergency rule ended and Governor Fubara resumed office, expectations were shaped less by policy and more by emotion. Many assumed that revenge would quietly find expression through governance. The loudest suspicion centered on the 2025 Christmas bonus of ?100,000 traditionally paid to each worker. The thinking was simple and cynical: a wounded governor would surely withhold goodwill. Some voices even mocked workers  openly hoping that the governor would refuse to pay the bonus. To them, denial of the bonus would serve as proof of political strength and justified retaliation. In reality, such thinking revealed a troubling desire to see governance reduced to personal vendetta. Yet,  it came to pass, the governor chose a path that confounded suspicion. Against all expectations, the 2025 Christmas bonus was paid.
That single decision quietly but firmly reframed the narrative. It showed a leader focused on governance rather than grudges, on institutional continuity rather than emotional satisfaction. The payment was not a favor, nor was it a concession; it was a statement that public administration must rise above personal injury. By honoring the bonus, Governor Fubara demonstrated that leadership is not measured by how hard one strikes back, but by how steady one remains under provocation. He made it clear that workers’ welfare would not become collateral damage in political disagreements. This action also served as a moral rebuke to those who celebrated division and hoped for punishment. Governance is not validated by the suffering of workers, nor is leadership strengthened by withholding entitlements. At the same time, the issue of alleged sycophancy and betrayal within the civil service cannot be brushed aside. If proven, such conduct deserves firm, lawful, and institutional correction. Civil servants are bound by duty to the state, not to political conspiracies or shifting loyalties.
However, justice must never be confused with revenge. The strength of governance lies in correcting wrongs without destroying the system itself. Governor Fubara’s restraint suggested an understanding that the future of Rivers State mattered more than settling scores. For workers, this moment carried an important lesson. Celebration should be rooted in good governance, not in the expectation of another’s downfall. Rejoicing in rumors of denial or punishment undermines the very stability that protects workers’ welfare. Public service thrives where professionalism, mutual respect, and accountability are upheld. Pettiness, gossip, and political scheming only weaken institutions and erode trust. History often remembers leaders not for the crises they inherit, but for the character they display in response. In paying the 2025 Christmas bonus, Governor Fubara chose legacy over impulse, maturity over malice.
And so, it came to pass that focus defeated revenge, governance triumphed over bitterness, and Rivers State was reminded that true leadership is proven when restraint is expected least but delivered most. Beyond the symbolism of the Christmas bonus lies a deeper question about the kind of political culture Rivers State intends to cultivate in the years ahead. Periods of emergency rule, anywhere in the world, often leave behind residues of suspicion, fear, and silent realignments. Institutions do not emerge untouched; individuals recalibrate loyalties, some out of conviction, others out of self-preservation. What distinguishes stable democracies from fragile ones is not the absence of such moments, but the discipline with which leadership manages their aftermath. River.
King Onunwor
Continue Reading

Opinion

That Withdrawal of Police   Orderlies  From VIPs

Published

on

Quote:”Balancing VIP security with public safety remains a tightrope walk in a country where the majority of citizens are still under-protected.”
The Presidential announcement on the removal of police orderlies from persons in authority and their relations  ( Very Important Persons ) last month came as a relief to many Nigerians who felt deprived    of one major  role of government ; security of lives and property.The higher  population of Nigerians  missed needed security because the VIPs and the VVIPs kept  retinue of Police Officers  totalling over 100 ,000 to  themselves and their family members as if they are all that matter  while some  communities under attack of terrorists  have no single unit of  police station located there in. While many hailed the announcement , some said perhaps the government has just woken up to her major responsibility of securing the lives and property of all  citizens while many expressed indifference on the note that it may be one of those pronouncements which come only in words but no action .Many keep their fingers crossed watching how it will play out , how Mr President  will  go about the implementation of the seemingly dicey  policy .
Benjamin Franklin  said “well said is better than well done ”  It is sufficient today to say that many Nigerians including me are still waiting and watching to see  how well  and how long this  return  of the Police service to the ordinary people will go . Wishing hopes will not be crashed ,  It  is note worthy, that  the recent complaints by the VIPs of being exposed to attacks  may in a way affect the action on implementation. Recently, at Senate plenary , another worrisome  angle came up as Senator Abdul Ningi  coming through a motion    disclosed that he had only one police officer attached to him ( his office ) and that  the officer was recalled the week before following  Mr President’s directive  . Senator Ningi said the withdrawal exposed him to high risks but underscored the angle that while his orderly  was recalled , many other politicians , men  and women in authority, business concerns   foreigners  and even children of some  VIPs are still enjoying retinue of police protection ( officially attached to them ).
 It’s note  worthy also that the Deputy Senate President , Distinguished Senator Jibrin Barau,  who presided  over  the session revealed that the  leadership of both chambers are already in discussion with President Tinubu on the need  to exempt  the law makers  from the new policy .  Senator Ningi may not be  wrong . After all he emphasized he is okay  provided that the removal of the Police Orderlies be done across board . Senator Barau noted that talks are on  over the issue of law makers’    in line with international practice . Further details from the Presidency  noted  that   Presiding officers  will retain their  police officers ,  others would have Civil Defense  officers ( NSCDC) as orderlies while  any other VIP who feels he or she deserves personal police protection should get clearance from  his office . In the midst of all  issues weighing in on the proper implementation , it becomes necessary  to bear in mind that  the decision  hinges on  the realization that Nigeria has peculiar security issues (of kidnappings, banditry, and terrorism.) and that  majority of Nigerians   are under protected.
More so, that if well  implemented, Police officers will focus on core duties; even as 30,000 new police officers are to  recruited to enhance security .That implementation  must be made in a  way that leaves no room.for selective  treatment loss of confidence  and  controversies.  Looking at previous attempts of  implementation  of this policy  gives faint hope  as several  attempts consistently failed . Former  IGPs like Tafa Balogun (2003), Ogbonnaya Onovo (2009), and Ibrahim Idris (2018) tried  the policy but all  failed due to political resistance from various angles. All the failed attempts  were tied to lack of political will  mostly due to the fact that the directives came from police chiefs, not the president. Selective Enforcement was another killer to the policy  as  partial implementation  met  resistance   and   later  reversal . Egbetokun (2023) and Adamu (2020) saw minimal impact.
Further more entrenched corruption in the system saw  Politicians and VIPs quietly regain police escorts due to ‘transactional economics”and pressure. Worse still the mindset of the  police officers  withdrawn didn’t help the policy Underpaid police prioritize VIP duties for extra benefits. Many wish President Tinubu’s move can  break this cycle.  As at today, he  still  insists the move is non-negotiable while stressing collaboration with states to upgrade training facilities. As citizens look forward to  success of the policy  without undue exposure of both sides, balancing VIP security with public safety remains a tightrope walk. Talk fades ; action echoes.  How the Presidency  implements this policy.  has  much to tell on the governments stand on national / community  security , choice of priority and the ability to   stand uncomprised . The known  goal is clear:  The outcome is  not yet certain.  Fingers crossed , we await . Definitely , time will tell.
By: Nneka Amaechi-Nnadi.
s State stood at such a crossroads in September 2025. The temptation to rule with a long memory and a heavy hand was real. Yet, the choice made signaled a preference for healing over hardening. Leadership after crisis demands more than administrative competence; it requires moral clarity.
 Governor Fubara’s decision reminded the state that authority is not best exercised through silent punishment or selective generosity. Rather, it is strengthened when rules remain rules, irrespective of personal injury. By keeping faith with workers, the government preserved an essential firewall between politics and public service. That firewall, once breached, turns governance into a battlefield where livelihoods become weapons. Rivers State narrowly avoided that descent. In doing so, it affirmed that institutions must outlive tempers, and governance must not mirror the bitterness of political seasons. This moment also invites sober introspection within the civil service itself. Allegations of partisanship, if left unresolved, corrode professionalism and weaken public confidence. A civil service that drifts into political camps loses its moral authority and operational effectiveness.
Therefore, reform, where necessary, should be guided by due process, transparency, and institutional review—not whispers, witch-hunts, or mob verdicts. Accountability strengthens systems when it is fair; it destroys them when it is arbitrary. The restraint shown by the executive places a corresponding burden on administrative leadership to restore discipline, neutrality, and pride in public service. For the wider political class and the commentariat, the episode serves as a caution against normalizing cruelty as strategy. The eagerness with which some anticipated workers’ suffering revealed a dangerous appetite for scorched-earth politics. When governance becomes a spectator sport where pain is cheered and deprivation is weaponized, society inches toward moral exhaustion. Rivers State has seen enough turbulence to know that stability is not sustained by triumphalism, but by restraint.
The lesson is simple yet profound: power is fleeting, but institutions endure; leaders pass, but precedents remain. In the end, the payment of the 2025 Christmas bonus was more than a fiscal act—it was a civic statement. It told workers they were not expendable. It told political actors that revenge would not be policy. And it told the state that maturity in leadership is not weakness, but strength under control. In a climate where many expected fire, restraint prevailed; where bitterness was predicted, balance emerged. Thus, Rivers State was offered a rare reminder that governance, at its best, is an act of discipline, and leadership, at its highest, is the courage to rise above provocation.
Continue Reading

Trending