I don’t mind people having an opinion, but I do object when people have two opinions on a topic that contradict each other. A recent example I’ll share from my personal life before tackling today’s hot issues. My husband wanted to put a dog park in our neighborhood. Everyone was in favor except one woman. She said that no one would use the dog park. And then she also argued that she wanted to be able to use the dog park but couldn’t if other dogs were in there. (She was afraid she’d get knocked over by all the dogs running around in the park). One argument was based on no one using the dog park. Another argument based on too many people using the dog park. Which is it lady?

On August 7, 2014, voters in Chattanooga had similar logical contusions when they repealed a city ordinance that would give non-discrimination protection to gays and lesbians and extend health benefits to domestic partners. Gays and lesbians can’t get married in Tennessee, and the state doesn’t even have a domestic partner registry, but Chattanooga allow both same sex and opposite sex couples to register as domestic partners. The City Council approved the ordinance, but a group of citizens opposed the measure.

The primary argument against the ordinance was that “marriage is an important value that should be rewarded and that giving benefits to unmarried couples dismisses the value of marriage”.

So let me get this straight. We all know that allowing same sex couples to marry diminishes the value of traditional marriage and leads to an Ebola pandemic (or at least according to TruNews talk show host Rick Wiles).

And now, we are told (and the Chattanooga voters believe) that allowing unmarried couples to receive the same benefits as married couples diminishes marriage.

So which is it? Should same sex couples be allowed to marry? Or should they have a separate but equal category of domestic partnership? Do both diminish marriage? (These constitutional challenges just write themselves sometimes.)

I think the Minnesota Viking special teams coordinator, Mike Priefer, has the answer some people really want: “Put all the gays on an island and nuke it”.

As a follower of the teachings of Christ, I’m deeply troubled by the values that are being spread in the name of Christianity.

I don’t think Jesus would be in favor of discrimination and genocide. And I imagine that he would be in favor of extending health care to those in need. I think helping the poor and the sick was real high on his list.

I long for the day when compassion becomes a conservative value once again.