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

Time and Season Can Tell

Published

14 hours ago

February 16, 2026

The Tide

Quote:”In matters of the heart, seasons expose what emotions try to hide.”

There is a silent crisis unfolding in modern relationships—one that many people endure quietly but rarely articulate. It is the experience of emotional attachment without clarity. Unlike betrayal, which announces itself loudly, or conflict, which forces confrontation, this crisis creeps in softly. It begins with warmth, grows through shared vulnerability, and then dissolves into silence. In my observation, some of the deepest emotional wounds are not inflicted by harsh words or dramatic endings. They are caused by something far subtler: the gradual withdrawal of affection without explanation. Silence in relationships is often mistaken for neutrality, but it is not neutral. Silence communicates—only it does so in a language of confusion. When someone slowly retreats without offering clarity, they leave the other person suspended between hope and reality.

There is no clear goodbye, no decisive closure—only distance. The unanswered messages. The reduced enthusiasm. The subtle shift in tone. Emotional ambiguity can be more painful than open rejection because it denies finality while sustaining expectation. It leaves the heart in limbo. In today’s world of instant communication and digital closeness, emotional intensity is frequently mistaken for love. When someone gives us attention, listens attentively, checks in consistently, and offers companionship during vulnerable moments, it is natural to assume that something meaningful is forming. After all, connection feels like commitment. But attention is not always intention. Closeness is not always clarity. In emotionally complicated relationships, there is often an imbalance that goes unnoticed at first. One person invests deeply—emotionally, mentally, even spiritually—while the other remains cautiously detached.

The connection may feel mutual, but the level of commitment is not. And when investment is unequal, pain eventually follows. One of the most dangerous consequences of such relationships is how subtly we lose ourselves in them. It does not happen overnight. It begins with small shifts. We check our phones more often. We rearrange our schedules. We replay conversations in our minds. Gradually, our emotional world begins to orbit around one person. Friends grow distant. Personal goals lose urgency. Self-worth becomes tied—quietly but firmly—to someone else’s presence and validation. When that person withdraws, the collapse feels catastrophic. Yet the devastation is not solely because love has ended. It is because identity has been shaken. We are not grieving only the person; we are grieving the version of ourselves that depended on them.

Silence, I have come to believe, can function as a form of power. When one person controls communication through distance—responding selectively, appearing and disappearing unpredictably—they unintentionally gain emotional dominance. The other person is left waiting, interpreting, hoping. They analyze every word, every delay, every change in tone. This imbalance may not always be intentional. Sometimes it arises from emotional immaturity or fear of confrontation. Yet its impact is undeniable. It reveals an uncomfortable truth: emotional availability is not guaranteed simply because connection exists. Chemistry does not equal commitment. Attraction does not equal accountability. With time, I began to understand that not every relationship is meant to last. Some people enter our lives not as permanent partners, but as temporary teachers.

They are not there to complete us, but to confront us—with our vulnerabilities, insecurities, and unmet needs. At first, this realization felt discouraging. It seemed to reduce love to a series of lessons. But eventually, it felt liberating. Emotional loss stopped looking like failure and started looking like revelation. Each experience—especially the painful ones—exposed areas where I needed growth. Where I needed stronger boundaries. Where I needed deeper self-awareness. Boundaries, I have learned, are not barriers against love; they are protections for it. Love without boundaries is not love—it is emotional exposure. Connection without clarity is not intimacy—it is uncertainty. Affection without commitment is not partnership—it is illusion. Healthy love requires mutual understanding, transparency, and intentionality. It demands that both individuals stand on equal emotional ground. Where one speaks, the other listens.

Where one invests, the other reciprocates. Where one withdraws, the other communicates. Time, more than emotion, reveals truth. In the beginning, feelings are loud. They rush, they excite, they overwhelm. But time tests what emotions promise. It exposes inconsistency. It clarifies intention. It separates temporary attraction from sustainable partnership. Seasons, too, teach us something essential about relationships. No season lasts forever. Some bring growth. Others bring pruning. Some relationships stay long enough to build a foundation; others stay just long enough to teach resilience. Neither is wasted. When we accept that relationships operate in seasons, we release the need to force permanence. We stop chasing clarity from those unwilling to give it. We stop romanticizing inconsistency. We stop equating intensity with depth.

Instead, we begin to value emotional safety over emotional excitement. We learn that peace is more sustaining than passion without direction. We recognize that self-worth must never depend on someone else’s attention.In matters of the heart, time and season always tell.They reveal who is consistent and who is convenient. They expose what is genuine and what is temporary. They show whether a connection is rooted in intention—or merely in circumstance. And perhaps the greatest wisdom is this: not every silence deserves to be decoded. Some silences are answers. When we understand that, we stop fearing endings. We begin trusting timing. We stop clinging to uncertainty and start choosing clarity.Because in the end, the heart may feel quickly—but time always tells the truth.

By: Isiocha Kate

Opinion

Why Adaeze Deserves A Second Chance

Published

14 hours ago

February 16, 2026

The Tide

Quote:”If performance is the standard, then continuity in Rivers’ health sector is not a favour — it is a necessity.”

When the executive council was dissolved and political permutations began to dominate conversations across Rivers State, one sector stood out in the public debate, Health. In a state where access to quality healthcare remains both a social necessity and political responsibility, performance has become the most persuasive argument. And in those conversations, the name of Adaeze Chidinma Oreh consistently resurfaces. Her tenure as Commissioner for Health was marked not by ceremonial appearances but by visible system reforms that ordinary residents could measure in improved service delivery. From the outset, she placed primary healthcare at the centre of the state’s health strategy, reinforcing the idea that sustainable reform begins at the grassroots. Primary Health Centres across several local government areas witnessed structural upgrades, improved staffing coordination, and better supply chain management for essential medicines.

Under her supervision, Rivers State deepened participation in the Basic Healthcare Provision Fund, ensuring that federal health allocations translated into tangible services at community level. Health insurance enrolment expanded significantly during her time in office, broadening access to affordable care for civil servants, informal sector workers, and vulnerable populations. Public opinion often cites this expansion as one of the most impactful interventions of her administration. HIV service delivery also experienced notable scaling. More facilities were equipped to provide testing and treatment services, reducing travel burdens for patients and strengthening continuity of care. Her administration strengthened disease surveillance mechanisms, an important safeguard in a post-pandemic era where preparedness is as critical as response.Beyond expansion of services, she demonstrated regulatory firmness. Illegal and unlicensed medical facilities were shut down, sending a strong message that patient safety would not be compromised.

This crackdown on quackery earned her both commendation and resistance, but public health advocates widely supported the stance as long overdue. Emergency medical response systems received renewed attention. Ambulance coordination and referral systems were reviewed and strengthened, improving response time in critical cases. Maternal and child health programmes gained renewed emphasis. Immunisation campaigns were intensified, and advocacy for respectful maternal care became more pronounced within state facilities. Health workers frequently described her leadership style as consultative. Stakeholder meetings were not mere formalities; they were platforms for problem-solving and accountability. She engaged development partners strategically, aligning donor support with state priorities rather than allowing fragmented programme implementation.International partnerships brought in technical assistance, equipment upgrades, and training opportunities for healthcare personnel.

Transparency also became a visible feature of her administration. When misinformation circulated — particularly around admissions into health training institutions — she addressed the public directly, clarifying facts and protecting citizens from fraud. Within professional circles, she was regarded as technically sound, able to interpret data and translate policy into operational strategy. Her public briefings were often data-driven, reflecting measurable indicators rather than abstract promises. The Primary Healthcare Leadership Challenge saw Rivers State earn recognition during her tenure, reinforcing claims of structured reform. Community outreach was not neglected. Rural communities reported increased supervision visits and closer monitoring of local health facilities. Civil society organisations in Rivers State frequently acknowledged improved responsiveness from the Ministry of Health during her administration.

She maintained visible engagement with frontline workers, visiting facilities and interacting directly with staff and patients. Her approach to governance balanced policy reform with human engagement — a combination many observers believe strengthened trust in the health system. Under her watch, health insurance awareness campaigns improved public understanding of pre-paid healthcare models. She supported integration of technology into health administration, enhancing data reporting and accountability systems. Persons living with HIV/AIDS, women in rural communities, and economically disadvantaged families became central to programme targeting. In public discourse, she was often described as performance-driven rather than politically flamboyant. Awards and recognitions followed, but more importantly, measurable system improvements formed the basis of those honours. Healthcare professionals credited her with restoring a sense of direction to policy implementation.

Her tenure reflected continuity in reform rather than abrupt, cosmetic changes. Critics of political reshuffles argue that the health sector, more than many others, benefits from sustained leadership to consolidate gains. Many residents believe that reform in healthcare requires consistency, institutional memory, and steady administrative hands. As conversations around reappointments intensify, health stakeholders continue to emphasise competence over political balancing. In markets, professional associations, and community meetings, her name surfaces in discussions about measurable impact. The argument is less about sentiment and more about outcomes — expanded insurance coverage, improved primary healthcare structures, firmer regulation, and strengthened partnerships. Rivers State’s health sector remains a work in progress, but public opinion suggests that her administration laid foundations that require continuity rather than disruption.

In a political climate where appointments are often influenced by calculations beyond performance, her tenure stands as a case study in technocratic leadership. If governance is ultimately about service delivery, then health remains one of its clearest tests. And if performance, regulatory courage, grassroots impact, insurance expansion, strengthened disease control systems, and improved public trust are the criteria, then let Adaeze Chidinma Oreh be the person.

By: King Onunwor

Opinion

Empowering Youth Through Agriculture

Published

1 week ago

February 9, 2026

The Tide

Quote:”While job seeking youths should continuously acquire skills and explore opportunities within their immediate environment as well as in the global space through the use of digital platforms, government, corporate/ multinational organizations or the organised private sector should generate skills and provide the enabling environment for skills acquisition, through adequate funding and resettlement packages that will provide sustainable economic life for beneficiaries”.

The Governor of Rivers State, Sir Siminalayi Fubara, recently urged youths in the Rivers State to take advantage of the vast opportunities available to become employers of labour and contribute meaningfully to the growth and development of the State. Governor Fubara noted that global trends increasingly favour entrepreneurship and innovation, and said that youths in Rivers State must not be left behind in harnessing these opportunities. The Governor, represented by the Secretary to the State Government, Dr Benibo Anabraba, made this known while declaring open the 2026 Job Fair organised by the Rivers State Government in partnership with the Nigeria Employers’ Consultative Association (NECA) in Port Harcourt. The Governor acknowledged the responsibility of government to create jobs for its teeming youth population but noted that it is unrealistic to absorb all job seekers into the civil service.
“As a government, we recognise our duty to provide employment opportunities for our teeming youths. However, we also understand that not all youths can be accommodated within the civil service. This underscores the need to encourage entrepreneurship across diverse sectors and to partner with other stakeholders, including the youths themselves, so they can transition from being job seekers to employers of labour,” he said. It is necessary to State that Governor Fubara has not only stated the obvious but was committed to drive youth entrepreneurship towards their self-reliance and the economic development of the State It is not news that developed economies of the world are skilled driven economies. The private sector also remains the highest employer of labour in private sector driven or capitalist economy though it is also the responsibility of government to create job opportunities for the teeming unemployed youth population in Nigeria which has the highest youth unemployed population in the subSahara Africa.
The lack of job opportunities, caused partly by the Federal Government’s apathy to job creation, the lack of adequate supervision of job opportunities economic programmes, lack of employable skills by many youths in the country have conspired to heighten the attendant challenges of unemployment. The challenges which include, “Japa” syndrome (travelling abroad for greener pastures), that characterises the labour market and poses threat to the nation’s critical sector, especially the health and medical sector; astronomical increase in the crime rate and a loss of interest in education. While job seeking youths should continuously acquire skills and explore opportunities within their immediate environment as well as in the global space through the use of digital platforms, government, corporate/ multinational organizations or the organised private sector should generate skills and provide the enabling environment for skills acquisition, through adequate funding and resettlement packages that will provide sustainable economic life for beneficiaries.
While commending the Rivers State Government led by the People First Governor, Sir Siminilayi Fubara for initiating “various training and capacity-building programmes in areas such as ICT and artificial intelligence, oil and gas, maritime, and the blue economy, among others”, it is note-worthy that the labour market is dynamic and shaped by industry-specific demands, technological advancements, management practices and other emerging factors. So another sector the Federal, State and Local Governments should encourage youths to explore and harness the abounding potentials, in my considered view, is Agriculture. Agriculture remains a veritable solution to hunger, inflation, and food Insecurity that ravages the country. No doubt, the Nigeria’s arable landmass is grossly under-utilised and under-exploited.
In recent times, Nigerians have voiced their concerns about the persistent challenges of hunger, inflation, and the general increase in prices of goods and commodities. These issues not only affect the livelihoods of individuals and families but also pose significant threats to food security and economic stability in the country. The United Nations estimated that more than 25 million people in Nigeria could face food insecurity this year—a 47% increase from the 17 million people already at risk of going hungry, mainly due to ongoing insecurity, protracted conflicts, and rising food prices. An estimated two million children under five are likely to be pushed into acute malnutrition. (Reliefweb ,2023). In response, Nigeria declared a state of emergency on food insecurity, recognizing the urgent need to tackle food shortages, stabilize rising prices, and protect farmers facing violence from armed groups. However, without addressing the insecurity challenges, farmers will continue to struggle to feed their families and boost food production.
In addition, parts of northwest and northeast Nigeria have experienced changes in rainfall patterns making less water available for crop production. These climate change events have resulted in droughts and land degradations; presenting challenges for local communities and leading to significant impact on food security. In light of these daunting challenges, it is imperative to address the intricate interplay between insecurity and agricultural productivity. Nigeria can work toward ensuring food security, reducing poverty, and fostering sustainable economic growth in its vital agricultural sector. In this article, I suggest solutions that could enhance agricultural production and ensure that every state scales its agricultural production to a level where it can cater to 60% of the population.
This is feasible and achievable if government at all levels are intentional driving the development of the agricultural sector which was the major economic mainstay of the Country before the crude oil was struck in commercial quantity and consequently became the nation’s monolithic revenue source. Government should revive the moribund Graduate Farmers Scheme and the Rivers State School-to-Land agricultural programmes to operate concurrently with other skills acquisition and development programmes. There should be a consideration for investment in mechanized farming and arable land allocation. State and local governments should play a pivotal role in promoting mechanized farming and providing arable land for farming in communities. Additionally, allocating arable land enables small holder farmers to expand their operations and contribute to food security at the grassroots level.
Nigeria can unlock the potential of its agricultural sector to address the pressing needs of its population and achieve sustainable development. Policymakers and stakeholders must heed Akande’s recommendations and take decisive action to ensure a food-secure future for all Nigerians.

By: Igbiki Benibo