Whilst already illegal, homosexuality is widely frowned upon across Nigeria and has been the subject of several bills in the National Assembly.
The Same-Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Bill specifically outlaws same-sex unions.
It also bans gatherings of homosexuals or any other support for gay clubs, organisations, unions or amorous expressions, whether in secret or in public.
The bill has been passed by Nigeria's Senate - the highest chamber - and is now being reviewed by the lower chamber, the House of Representatives.
...
Interesting the article itself deals with another topic that the Bible condemns,
Deuteronomy 22 5 "A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.---NASB
Transvestites, may or may not be queer, but they carrying out actions that are an abomination to God.
Frank wrote: Thanks for the response Rufus; I always enjoy reading your comments. We appear to agree on this issue. If given the opportunity, I do believe the Catholics would attempt to legislate morality in a theocratic sense if afforded the opportunity and as you know, so would the dominionists. There are more of them running around then either of us imagine.
Rufus wrote: I don't suspect anyone is advocating these things to be done in the name of a theocratic kingdom or such like. But as you rightly point out, it was once illegal to engage in sodomy (at least it was in the state of Texas). The State of Texas likewise had laws against abortion. Then come the Federal courts overriding that which was righteous and marching forward with their eugenic intentions. Nothing wrong for a civil government to identify that which is unnatural and detrimental and legislate against it.
Thanks for the response Rufus; I always enjoy reading your comments. We appear to agree on this issue. If given the opportunity, I do believe the Catholics would attempt to legislate morality in a theocratic sense if afforded the opportunity and as you know, so would the dominionists. There are more of them running around then either of us imagine.
Frank wrote: I also don't think that the Christian community, acting as a corporate body, should get involved with imprisoning those who aren't saved regardless of what the particular sin is. There are no more religious courts. When the temple was destroyed and Christ said to go into all the world, that was the end of that sort of thing. Only the dominionists; Catholics,(they actually did that sort of thing) and Muslims would likely disagree with that. With that said, I can remember when sodomy was illegal in at least some of the US and I thought that was a healthy societal law, which was good for cultures in general. So, I would not confuse Christian morality with the imprisonment of homosexuals, but I would support the idea.
I don't suspect anyone is advocating these things to be done in the name of a theocratic kingdom or such like. But as you rightly point out, it was once illegal to engage in sodomy (at least it was in the state of Texas). The State of Texas likewise had laws against abortion. Then come the Federal courts overriding that which was righteous and marching forward with their eugenic intentions. Nothing wrong for a civil government to identify that which is unnatural and detrimental and legislate against it.
I also don't think that the Christian community, acting as a corporate body, should get involved with imprisoning those who aren't saved regardless of what the particular sin is. There are no more religious courts. When the temple was destroyed and Christ said to go into all the world, that was the end of that sort of thing. Only the dominionists; Catholics,(they actually did that sort of thing) and Muslims would likely disagree with that.
With that said, I can remember when sodomy was illegal in at least some of the US and I thought that was a healthy societal law, which was good for cultures in general. So, I would not confuse Christian morality with the imprisonment of homosexuals, but I would support the idea.
A little known fact about Islamic culture is that homosexuality runs rampant. Pedophilia is especially a problem. So while they may be against it as a religion, they really have no problem with it practically.
Neil, you made some good points. I would point out since northern Nigeria is mainly Muslim, queers would be stoned to death, so queers would be lucky to make it in jail to protect them from Muhammadans.
1 Timothy 1 9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,---NASB
I think the Nigerian government is using this as a distraction for a much more serious problem, the murdering Muhammadans.
Angela Wittman wrote: I appreciate Judge Rufus' Biblical stand and pray the good Lord will someday give us men with such insight to serve as judges and magistrates.
It is NOT Biblical to imprison convicts, even sodomites. And in my unhappy experience, Christians today make lousy judges, per 1 Cor. 6:5. The tendency is to convict people on hearsay alone.
Oscar Wilde got hard labor, a slightly more Biblical punishment.
Rufus wrote: I give them an A for effort, particularly when contrasted against our empirialist[sic] masters who promote, rather than discourage sodomy.
The ends do not justify the means, so I give them a 'F'. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. And it makes as much sense as punishing a drunk-driver with hard-labor in a brewery.
Neil wrote: Nonetheless, prison is not a Biblical punishment. It is a failed invention of humanistic philosophy. And they are notorious nests of sodomy; I thought people knew that. And shaming only works with people who fear shame (Jer. 6:15). I don't see a lot of that anymore in our country, at least. If Judge Rufus jailed sodomites here, that would only make martyrs out of them for their sympathizers.
People do know that. 'tis the root of the advent of droopy drawers, sodomites in prison letting folks know they are available.
Judge Rufus agrees that prison was not an established punishment of the Lord so Judge Rufus would sentence folks to capital or corporal punishment. However, I have not been ordained with that role at this time and my solutions are so far out of vogue in this world. Thus, the Nigerians went with what their established form of punishment is, I give them an A for effort, particularly when contrasted against our empirialist masters who promote, rather than discourage sodomy.
Rufus wrote: Prison changes behavior for the positive quite little. However, I am glad for Nigeria's stand and at least they have a magistrate or two putting people who engage in sin to shame.
Nonetheless, prison is not a Biblical punishment. It is a failed invention of humanistic philosophy. And they are notorious nests of sodomy; I thought people knew that.
And shaming only works with people who fear shame (Jer. 6:15). I don't see a lot of that anymore in our country, at least. If Judge Rufus jailed sodomites here, that would only make martyrs out of them for their sympathizers.
Neil wrote: Think about it: will putting sodomites in prison really stop their sin?
Prison changes behavior for the positive quite little. However, I am glad for Nigeria's stand and at least they have a magistrate or two putting people who engage in sin to shame.
COMMENTS | 
