Opinion
Should Christians Support Gay Marriage? (1)
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
Ken Saro-Wiwa’s Unfinished Struggle (I)
On November 10, 1995, the Nigerian military government of General Sani Abacha executed Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni leaders after a deeply controversial trial. Their deaths marked one of the darkest chapters in Nigeria’s history. At a time when fear silenced citizens and sycophancy flourished around military power, Saro-Wiwa chose to confront tyranny. Many Nigerians retreated into silence, while others praised the regime to secure favour. He knew the risks, yet refused to abandon a people whose land had been devastated by oil exploration and whose lives remained trapped in poverty. His courage arose from the conviction that public responsibility sometimes demands resistance to authority. Saro-Wiwa understood that speaking against a military government could lead to imprisonment or death.
Nonetheless, he believed the suffering of the Ogoni people demanded a courageous response. While oil was extracted from their land, they were left with polluted rivers, damaged farmland, declining livelihoods and an environment hostile to human survival. Fishing grounds and sources of livelihood were threatened, while the people struggled to secure basic amenities. The wealth beneath their soil brought neither adequate development nor a fair share of national resources. For him, silence in the face of injustice would have amounted to complicity. Through the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP), he organised a peaceful campaign that took the Ogoni question to the international community. MOSOP gave ordinary people an organised platform through which to express their grievances and insist on recognition.
The Ogoni Bill of Rights, presented to the Federal Government in 1990, demanded political autonomy, economic justice, environmental protection and control over the people’s resources. The campaign exposed the human and ecological costs of oil operations, particularly those associated with Shell, and challenged the apparent alliance between corporate interests and an unresponsive State. The Ogoni struggle became a defining expression of minority rights and environmental justice in Nigeria and Africa. Saro-Wiwa’s writings and mobilisation drew attention to communities treated as expendable because of their limited population and political influence. He argued that numerical strength should never determine a people’s value or rights.
A minority community does not become less deserving of justice because it cannot command electoral numbers or political power. In Nigeria, every ethnic group deserves dignity, protection and a fair opportunity to benefit from the commonwealth. Rather than respond to peaceful agitation with dialogue, the Abacha regime resorted to repression. Ogoni leaders were harassed, detained and killed; others fled into exile. The crisis intensified after four Ogoni chiefs were killed in May 1994. Saro-Wiwa and other MOSOP leaders were arrested, tried by a special tribunal and executed despite international appeals for clemency and serious concerns about the trial’s fairness. The executions drew worldwide condemnation and intensified scrutiny of Nigeria’s human-rights record and oil companies in the Niger Delta.
They demonstrated the danger of using State institutions to suppress peaceful demands. The proceedings remain a reminder of the need for judicial independence and due process. Saro-Wiwa’s courage rested on the conviction that justice must be pursued despite the cost. His method combined non-violent resistance, public education and grassroots organisation. His struggle recalled the civil-rights campaign of Martin Luther King Jr. and the power of peaceful mobilisation against injustice. Saro-Wiwa linked environmental degradation to political exclusion, economic exploitation and the denial of democratic rights. Oil-producing communities, he insisted, should not remain zones from which wealth is removed to develop other parts of the country.
Their people must benefit through roads, schools, healthcare, jobs and clean water. Resource extraction carries a duty to protect host communities. His argument extended to the structure of the Nigerian federation. He challenged a revenue-allocation system that made oil-producing communities bear the environmental and social costs of extraction without commensurate benefits. Like advocates of fiscal federalism, he believed resources should be managed and shared equitably. He envisaged a society in which no community would be disadvantaged by its size, ethnicity, political affiliation, culture or religion. His vision was a country bound together by justice and equal citizenship. Saro-Wiwa was also a gifted writer, dramatist and public intellectual.
Through books, essays, plays and television, he documented Nigerian society’s contradictions and challenged abuses of power. His popular television series, Basi and Company, demonstrated his creative range, while his leadership of the Association of Nigerian Authors encouraged writers to engage national questions. He believed literature should not be detached from society’s struggles. His pen exposed environmental injustice, political repression and the dangers of silencing courageous voices. He used storytelling, satire and drama to shape public consciousness and expose social contradictions. His literary achievements gave his activism wider reach and made the Ogoni experience part of national conversation. His commitment to the Ogoni people extended beyond the oil question.
During the Civil War, he worked to protect his vulnerable community. He urged younger generations to reject subservience and complacency and pursue change through lawful, peaceful means. Citizens, he believed, must not surrender their responsibility to challenge wrong doing. An injury to one community threatens the rights and security of all. The return to democratic government in 1999 and the establishment of the Niger Delta Development Commission, the Ministry of Niger Delta Affairs and the Hydrocarbon Pollution Remediation Project (HYPREP) are among developments that have kept the region’s demands in public view. Saro-Wiwa did not create these institutions, but his movement helped expose the urgency of intervention and sustain pressure for redress.
His death made it harder to ignore the Niger Delta’s environmental and political grievances. Yet, interventionist institutions do not prove that the original demands have been met. Their effectiveness depends on competent leadership, transparent spending, measurable outcomes and community participation. Yet, thirty-one years after his execution, the central concerns of the Ogoni struggle remain unresolved. The HYPREP-led clean-up has offered hope, but many residents await meaningful improvements. Questions persist about the programme’s pace, quality and transparency, and whether its benefits reach ordinary people. A clean-up should be judged not by ceremonies or contracts, but by restored land and waterways, safe drinking water, improved livelihoods and better public health.
It must include long-term monitoring to ensure treated sites remain safe. Residents deserve information about contamination, remediation methods and completion timelines. Reports that water projects in Gwara and Ebubu Communities, in Khana and Eleme Local Government Areas respectively, failed weeks after commissioning have raised further concerns. If confirmed, the failures would indicate weaknesses in supervision, procurement and quality control.
To be continued in our next edition.
Taneh Beemene
Opinion
Reforming NYSC For Practical National Service
The National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) was established in 1973, after the Nigerian Civil War, to promote national unity, reconciliation and integration. By deploying graduates beyond their States of origin, its founders hoped to encourage understanding among Nigeria’s diverse peoples and help rebuild a divided country. However, the difficulties confronting corps members and their families now demand a comprehensive review. For many graduates, national service has become a period of uncertainty, financial pressure and exposure to risks. Parents who have spent years financing their children’s education must still find money for transportation, camp necessities, accommodation, feeding and other expenses. The monthly allowance may provide some relief, but often cannot meet the cost of living, especially where the place of primary assignment offers no accommodation or support.
Security is another serious concern. Corps members may be posted to communities affected by kidnapping, communal violence, insurgency or other threats. Government cannot eliminate every danger, but it must assess locations, provide reliable security information and avoid deployments where safety cannot reasonably be assured. National service should promote patriotism, not expose graduates to preventable harm. There is also the problem of securing meaningful places of primary assignment. A graduate trained in engineering may perform duties unrelated to engineering; a journalist may spend the year in an office with no opportunity to practise journalism. Graduates in agriculture, health, education and other specialised fields may likewise be assigned routine tasks that contribute little or nothing to their professional growth. Some depend on personal contacts or incur expenses to obtain suitable placements.
A year is significant for a young graduate entering a competitive labour market. National service should not be merely a compulsory waiting period before the search for employment begins. It should help bridge the gap between academic learning and practical work. The time has therefore come to review the structure of NYSC, not necessarily abolish it. I propose that the one-year programme should become vocational and professionally oriented. Graduates should, as far as practicable, be posted to institutions where they can gain supervised experience in their fields of study. Teachers should serve in schools; health graduates in suitable health facilities; engineers in technical organisations and public works departments; agricultural graduates in farms and extension services; and communication graduates in media and public information establishments.
NYSC should partner with ministries, state and local governments, private companies, professional bodies, universities, hospitals, schools and credible organisations to identify genuine training opportunities. Each member should have defined duties, a supervisor and clear learning objectives. At the end of the year, each should receive a record of duties performed and competencies acquired. The reform must also address remuneration and welfare. Corps members should receive fair pay that reflects the demands of their placements, while host organisations should provide reasonable support where possible. Government must establish transparent funding arrangements so that the new system does not become another burden imposed on employers or parents. Transport or accommodation assistance should be considered for difficult postings.
Graduates seeking jobs after service would have more than a discharge certificate: they would possess practical experience, workplace discipline and demonstrable skills. Employers would gain access to young people who have received supervised preparation. However, professional relevance should not erase the scheme’s founding objective of national integration. Inter-State deployment can remain, provided it is balanced with security, suitable placements and the availability of basic facilities. Where a safe and meaningful placement cannot be guaranteed outside a graduate’s State, an alternative should be considered. Orientation and community development activities can continue to promote cultural exchange, citizenship and service.
The Federal Government and NYSC management should convene consultations involving corps members, parents, universities, employers, security agencies and State Governments. Decisions should be based on evidence and the experiences of serving and former corps members. NYSC was created to help rebuild a nation divided by war. Its ideals remain important, but institutions must adapt to changing realities. Success should not be measured only by the number of graduates mobilised or certificates issued. It should also be measured by the skills acquired, the contribution made and whether young Nigerians complete their service safely and with dignity. It can better preserve the scheme’s founding ideals while meeting today’s economic and professional needs. A vocationally driven; adequately remunerated NYSC would turn national service from a costly obligation into a bridge between education, employment and national development. The purpose should not simply be to occupy graduates for twelve months, but to prepare them to work, serve and contribute meaningfully to Nigeria’s future.
Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi
Opinion
Protecting Nigeria’s Democratic Space
Quote: “Democracy is not
As the 2027 general elections
Organisers said they had
Police intervention
In Kaduna, the ADC accused
These claims require prompt
These rights apply equally to
No ambition, party or
By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi
-
Politics4 days agoLG CITY BOY COORDINATOR HAILS WIKE’S SUPPORT FOR ONYESOH, TINUBU
-
Politics4 days ago
DIRI INAUGURATES APC CAMPAIGN COUNCIL, SETS MILLION VOTES TARGET FOR TINUBU
-
Politics4 days agoNDC Candidate Urges Oborevwori To Probe Asaba Political Violence
-
News5 days agoArmy Recovers X Account After Hack Attempt
-
Business14 hours ago
‘NUJ, NPA’s Partnership Would Boost Port Producrivity, Economic Growth’
-
News11 hours ago
RSG Reaffirms Commitment To STEM Education, Technological Advancement
-
News11 hours agoIGP Warns Police Officers Against Partisanship …Directs Regular Engagement With Journalists
-
Politics4 days ago
2027: Oborevwori Tasks Media On Fair, Accurate Reporting
