Equal Rights

So I don't think anything specific led to wanting to write this post. But the bottom line is this: I don't care who you are- what your religion is, what color your skin is, what gender you are or what your sexual preference is. You are human and I believe regardless of anything else everyone should have equal rights. I think everyone should have equal opportunities to make their dreams come true, but I also think everyone should work hard and be willing to settle if their dreams are not profitable to make a life for themselves and their family.

I was originally thinking about women's rights. I like being a woman. I believe women are equal to men. But I don't want to be a man I want to prove I am a woman but still equal. I believe women should be able to work if they want or need to. I also think a woman who chooses to stay at home is equal to men or other women. I believe women should get paid the same amount and be treated with the same amount of respect. I believe women are powerful and capable of many things. Yet when I go to church on Sunday I wear a skirt and a dress to show that I am feminine and a woman. (With the exception of only a few cultures skirts and dresses are still for women.) I also am starting to realize that sometimes the feminist movements demean men. Men need to feel needed. I think they (historically) became the breadwinners because it gave them a purpose. Something that they were good at. Men can do many things and some are awesome stay-at-home dads. Men can also do anything and are equal to women. I think I need to pull back sometimes and realize, as much as I think women are awesome, men are too. I need to make sure I don't demean the opposite sex in my praise of women.

That got me thinking about race. I don't consider myself to be racist. I believe anyone, regardless of race should have equal rights and equal opportunities. If someone grows up and circumstances prevent them from getting the right opportunities I believe in finding a way to help them. But there comes a time when race quotas just hurt those who are qualified. I believe in helping any person, regardless of race, be qualified for the jobs they want. But there comes a time when the job should go to whoever is best qualified, regardless of race and regardless of quotas. I know that blacks were underprivileged and enslaved. The slaves were freed over a hundred years ago and legally they received the same rights almost a hundred years ago. I believe in making sure they have those equal rights, but there comes a time when the minority punishes the majority for stuff that happened before they even lived. I don't believe that is right. We should help everyone have the same opportunities, give them every tool they need to succeed but then it's up to the individual to work hard. And if there aren't enough jobs for everyone to be a doctor someone will have to humble themselves and flip burgers until the right opportunity comes. I don't care if that person is white or black.

And your sexual preference. I don't care what it is. I didn't like the Chick-fil-a stuff a few years back with gays making out in front and boycotting the business. But I also didn't like when straight couples wanted to retaliate and make out at Chick-fil-a. Why? Because I believe intimacy is between two people and supposed to be (mostly) in private. I'm ok with a kiss in public, or holding hands, or snuggling, but I don't want to see anyone making out in public or more.

And while I'm at it. Public nursing. They say it's not about a woman's right and indecency, it's about a baby's right to eat- a basic need. I agree with this. But at the same time I don't like the photos where women blatantly are breastfeeding. Sure it's natural. So is sex, but I don't believe that because something is natural that means it should be public. Sure breastfeeding may show a boob or a nipple and that should be fine, but that doesn't mean you have to show as much as you can when you're feeding your baby. Try to cover up- and if your baby doesn't like the cover, then people may see things but at least you tried. I also think it's absurd when people get mad at women for feeding a baby in public but a girl with cleavage that is SO MUCH more provocative is somehow fine. COVER UP! (This is not to nursing mothers but anyone who's showing so much cleavage that they're wearing stuff that should be reserved for the bedroom.

Anyways, I think my rant is done. Just because your ancestors were underprivileged does not mean you are or have to be. I will help people get equal rights and opportunities when I can. But with those rights, you can take away someone else's rights.

'Let it Go' and Homosexuality- So what?

"Let it Go" was on the radio the other day and it got me thinking about things. First off, I like the song and the movie, but I read a post about how 'Frozen' is pushing the 'gay agenda'. The post made some good points, but I felt like the post was poorly written. It spent the first half of the extremely long blog ostracizing its readers and targeted audience- an audience the author was trying to get on her side, but spent the first half basically calling her readers idiots. When she finally got to her actual point and purpose behind writing the blog she pointed out how Disney portrayed different things and how it relates to homosexuality. But I started thinking and came to the conclusion, "So What?" So what if Disney's purpose in writing things the way they did was to promote homosexuality? Does that mean that they were successful? Can't it mean other things? When I watched it I thought back to my childhood- I was given a gift- I could sing. But my Dad teased me (because that's who he is) and I grew ashamed. I would only sing behind a closed door and with the music turned up. It took a long time for me to get to the point where I could 'let it go', and sometimes it's still hard for me to not be shy/ashamed about it. And even if it is promoting homosexuality- there were a few aspects to Elsa's gifts. It was cool. It could be wonderful but it could also be dangerous. There was an aspect of others not accepting her, but she did almost kill her sister because she couldn't control her 'gift'. So, Disney may have been trying to promote homosexuality, but you have the choice to decide what it means to you. Does it represent letting go of fear? I believe all of us are born with certain things that will tempt us and possibly make us sin- can we not look at it as we're all given gifts, but if we don't learn to control our temptations they lead us to sin and a spiritual death (separation from God- because no imperfect person can dwell with God)?

I'm also reminded of The Golden Compass Series or His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman. Many people decided not to see the movie or read the books because the author said his purpose was to persuade people to not believe in God. So what? Many people said that he destroys God and so the books and movie must be awful.  I have read them and loved them and I'll tell you what he did. He created a world very much like our own. In it there was no God. There was a corrupt Pope who made up the idea of God for the purpose of gain. Now to me there was no God to destroy. There was a corrupt leader. Haven't we all met corrupt people? Some of them in leadership positions? Don't we try to remove them from our lives? Now for an Atheist, isn't it logical for him to think that all religious leaders are either corrupt or delusional? So to me he maybe made a bad decision as to who to frame as being corrupt, but everything in his books, including the Dust, and the daemons and the soul point to a God that simply is never found in his books. I love the quote from the end of his third book, and actually used when teaching people about God and Jesus Christ. So what if his purpose was to destroy God? In my opinion, he failed.

And Disney- well it depends on how you decide to interpret it. Does it have a good message? Or only one, possibly negative one (depending on your opinion on homosexuality)? So to any critics out there- 'so what if Disney's purpose was to preach homosexuality?' Does that mean they were successful? Have we, as watchers, lost our ability to take what we want from movies? I choose to see the good in it and to take what I want from it.

Dear Mr. President

Dear Mr. President,

I didn’t vote for you.  I don’t like you.  I hate everything you’ve done with the country.  But instead of getting involved, I feel this country is a lost cause.  So I don’t send a letter to my Senator, or Representative, I just sit at my computer writing hate mail and forwarding it to all of my friends, who in turn either delete the email or forward it to more people because they are just like me. 

I am frustrated that my efforts at forwarding hate mail never seem to change anything.  They feed my desire to be angry and vocal about lost causes.  They make me into a critic picking out every small detail.

I know that leading a country is an exact science.  The outcomes can always be predicted with 100% accuracy.  You just aren’t doing it that way, so our country is dwindling fast.  You can’t seem to predict the future and so our country still struggles.

Sincerely,

Citizen who hates current President

 

Dear Citizens,

If this sounds like you, examine yourself.  Is our country really doomed or is there hope?  In the very worst case we can elect a “better” candidate in 4 years.  We do have a say in how our country works, but we have to get involved and get others involved- not in forwarding our mail but in voting.  Making our voice heard by our representatives so they can carry that message to those who lead this country and bring up the issues we may be facing.

No president is perfect.  I did not vote for our current President.  I do not agree with most of the decisions he has made (at least the bigger ones I’m aware of), but most of the country wanted to see his view of making the country better.  Without our support and “friendly” criticism telling our representatives when things don’t work right no president can make any difference.  We elect those who lead us.  Are they qualified?  Do we talk with our friends telling them why someone is qualified before they’re voted into office so the “wrong” one doesn’t get elected?  Leading the country is not an exact science.  History may repeat, but small circumstances can change the result.  What worked before or what inspired a leader to make a certain decision may not even lead to what he wanted to happen.  There are so many little tiny variables affecting the big picture and struggling to figure out what will work can be hard.  There is no “one way” to do things.  And a whole country, a mix of different cultures and people, and different values is not easy to lead or figure out what the best decision is for everyone all the time.

Have you ever been in charge of multiple people for a project or anything?  Did it go right the first time?  Were you perfect?  Were there no mistakes on anyone’s behalf?  Everyone put in equal effort and did everything perfect?  That’s not how things work- so if you got lucky remember it was just that- lucky.  Everyone makes mistakes- even the best President when it comes to making national decisions.  Let us support the President and be vocal and actively involved- but not hateful.  Let us write to our Representatives- who have a voice in Congress- tell them the issues.  Give them petitions when needed, signed by friends to show it is not just one person’s concern.  Be active in voting.  Let your opinion be heard- but let it have solutions, or explain the problem so a solution can at least be looked into.  Our current President’s speech of “Change” was very inspiring but it wasn’t very specific.  Most of the public is not involved and doesn’t care about the specifics.  So “Change”-  yes we want change- but who can get us there?  HOW will they get us there?  If you can’t answer those questions when complaining then quit complaining and realize that at least the President (even if he screws up) is TRYING to make changes.  He is working towards something, and that’s better than nothing at all.

Sincerely,

A Citizen Determined to Become More Involved

Greenpeace

So, the other day I was going to Trader Joe's to buy a few specialty items- like special bread for my husband and one other thing I can't remember.  On my way out my husband and I were approached by a lady standing outside, advertising/selling something.  Well, my husband stopped.  I usually don't.  I usually walk a different route to avoid them.  But anyways, I don't know how to get out of a conversation and I guess my husband doesn't either, so we listened to her talk about greenpeace.  I mean, I care about the Earth.  I like being able to breathe clean air, and I want it to last.  But here's the thing: I don't believe doing my part for the environment requires monthly payments from me.

I kind of got annoyed.  When I say I don't have money to spare, I don't have money to spare.  We just recently got out of credit card debt, but still have a lot of student loans and 2 car payments.  If it weren't for charity from my grandma and both sets of parents, we probably would be dead about now.  What I make is mainly what we get each month.  It covers bills and $100 for food every month and little else.  Rent- we wouldn't be able to afford it in this area we live in now.  And some girl wants us to give MORE each month, as a commitment?  If we make more in a month, I'm ok with giving when I have more, but we DON'T have extra every month.  Now, I guess some people would say get rid of a car, but that's not very economical either.  My husband and I go in opposite directions, I go farther than he does.  Anyways, even if I had money I tend to resent people who stop me in the street.  When they come to my house, I feel a little bit better, even though I rarely invest in anything that comes door-to-door, but at least I don't resent the people doing it.  The stupid girl made me late to work, because I didn't know how to be rude enough to leave earlier.

Now, onto my REAL feelings for Greenpeace.  I believe very strongly in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon (a Second Witness of Jesus Christ) and in modern revelation, from God directly to Prophets, on what we need to know and do to survive in this world today, both spiritually and temporally.  First there are accounts in the scriptures that say that God made this Earth and He made it with enough resources to support us.  Now I'm not stupid enough to think that if we foolishly waste them instead of use them, that we'll still be blessed regardless.  But the Prophets say to live within our means.  The things I read teach me to be responsible and caring.  I can recycle to help the environment and it doesn't require extra money out of my pocket.  I can sign petitions or boycott companies that mis-use the environment or beg them to change their policies.  Last time I checked, those things CAN get stuff done and don't require more money out of my pocket.  She said that the money they get funds stopping companies like KFC from using some material for the foods, that's harmful for the environment or wasteful... I can't remember, maybe it just boycotts tree farms- or whatever she called them, but can't we just petition or boycott them and let them know that's why we're boycotting them?  Can't an organization work together without wasting money in people's pockets?  Does it cost much to send an email to everyone in a grassroots organization a newsletter telling them what we're focusing on that month to help the environment?

So basically I do not like Greenpeace.  I like that they care about the environment, but I don't believe in their methods.  I believe we can do our best to take care of the environment and be involved in the world around us to help out.  But what IF we are foolishly wasting our resources?  Well, in that case, I am still going to do my part, but I also believe in the Second Coming of Christ.  The Last Days.  Things will get awful, and THEN Christ will come.  The world will be at complete peace and be better than I think I can imagine.  It will be restored to its former glory.  So, again, what if we are wasting our resources?  I will still do my part, but I look forward to the day when Christ will come again.  YES, it will be awful before hand, maybe the quicker it happens, the less the righteous will have to suffer.

So, do what you wish.  As for me, I do not support Greenpeace, but I do love the Earth.  I will continue to recycle and pick up after myself.  I will participate in service projects when I know about them to help keep the Earth clean, but if the resources are still being wasted I will be happy knowing that the awful days are coming quickly and then after them I can look forward to Christ coming.  After the night and terrors of the Last Days, the morning will come and Christ will be here and everything will be alright once more.

Mormon Feminist Movement

So, one day, my husband tells me that there's word on facebook going around about an event- "Wear pants to Church on Sunday".  It was part of a Mormon feminist movement.  First off I felt disgusted and then a little angry. Let me explain.

I love being a woman.  I do not believe in being submissive, weak and being easily pushed aside.  I believe my testimony and thoughts and opinions are equal to any man.  I believe men are no better (and sometimes I think us women really are the best- to be humble).  In my study of the Old Testament I gained a strong testimony of the influence and importance of women.  It seemed that whether a man or nation was righteous or wicked was completely dependent upon the woman.  A woman's influence is powerful and important.

Now, onto the actual event before I explain a little more of my opinion.  What a stupid idea?!  Wearing pants to Church on Sunday?  We go to Church for us and the Lord and we go in our Sunday best to show the Lord our respect.  You want to disrespect the Lord and tell Him He doesn't love you as much as men because you are generally expected to wear a dress or skirt?  I understand if you don't own a dress or a skirt and your Sunday best IS a pants suit, or something like that.  But this event was the stupidest thing I had ever heard of.

Now, let's take a look at other Equal Rights Movements.  Let's start with Civil Rights and the Blacks wanting equal rights.  Think about it in your mind.... were the Blacks wanting to bleach their skins and BECOME whites?  Or did they just want to be treated equally?  Now onto homosexuals.  Are they fighting to be treated equally?  Or do they want to be the same as heterosexual couples and be forced to be straight?  I think the answers to those questions should be obvious.  Now onto the Mormon feminist movement- is it about being treated equally or becoming a man?  The reason women do not generally wear pants is not to show they are unequal but to celebrate womanhood and the fact that there is a difference, not in treatment (hopefully) but just in who they are.  The way we are asked to dress has nothing to do with inequality but celebrating who we are and our differences without necessarily being unequal.

Back to a few things about feminism.  I had someone close to me who was a strong feminist, so I learned a few things from her.  The fact is "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." (The Family: A Proclamation to the World)  
One part goes into differences between men and women: "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children."  But it also says, "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."  So there are differences between men and women but they are still supposed to be equal and there is room for adaptation.  The fact is, we have innate differences that are part of our gender- almost genetic in a sense.  I'll give an example from my life:  I have decided I want to major in teaching (not sure what level yet or subject).  I did not choose it because I generally think of teaching as a woman's major- easy to do with a family because you have the same schedule as your kids... I actually fought that major for this reason for awhile.  I looked into Civil Engineering for a little while- a field that makes me think- men.  Although I still have an interest in that it wasn't meant for me.  And likewise the medical field- there are many women nurses and some women doctors, but the thing is: I have a weak stomach.  I would not make a good nurse or doctor.  I chose my major based on my strengths, and our difference in roles as far as gender goes is based on strengths and weaknesses of the genders.  There are cases where there will be adapting because sometimes, perhaps, we don't fit the stereotype, but women are naturally more sensitive and nurturing than men.  Even my feminist friend was a nurturer.  

Now onto serving missions.  The age difference is now smaller.  It used to be women at age 21 CAN serve and men at 19.  Now it's just a year different and women can go at 19.  I've heard a few complaints as to the length of time... women can only serve for 18 months and men go for 2 years. First off, it's 6 months...  Not a big deal.  Granted, I loved my mission and would've loved staying for an extra 6 months.  I think it's easy for a woman/sister to enjoy serving a mission.  You are nurturing people, spiritually and emotionally and serving and teaching- it comes easy to us.  But when I came home I realized that I wanted to stay because staying seemed easier.  I think it's easier for sisters to get lost in the work (which is good) and then want to avoid the rest of their life.  I think if extensions were still allowed, you would see many sisters who would miss out on their own life thinking they were doing good by serving.  But there comes a point where you are using a mission and service as a way to avoid living your own life and finding your own life's mission.  Men: it is considered a Priesthood responsibility (Priesthood brings up another issue for later).  Therefore they are required to go.  Personally, I think this helps a guy mature.  The ones who serve faithfully learn things that influence the rest of their lives for good.  It helps them learn to be more in tune with people, more sensitive to needs and concerns and more caring. 

Now onto the Priesthood:  I've heard women complain about not having the Priesthood.  I kinda disagree with this.  Above I mentioned that our genders give us innate differences.  Men are given the Priesthood as a means to serve others.  That's what it's about- serving others.  They cannot give the Sacrament to themselves, they have to hand the tray to another before partaking.  They cannot give themselves a blessing.  I think the Priesthood helps men keep a sense of service and Christlike qualities in their life.  It is also a blessing.  The Priesthood is God's power given to men on earth to act in His name.  Now let's examine this a little more closely.  When a sister serves a mission it is as if she is there FOR Christ himself, and she is supposed to act as He would in His name- written on her tag.  She is given permission to serve as a missionary to proselyte and serve just as the men are.  Granted she is not given permission to baptize or perform ordinances- but still is given power with permission from God to act in His name.  Now onto creation.  We are told that the ability to create is a power of God.  Women can create in many ways.  They can create a home, or a spiritual place of refuge.  They can create life within our bodies (with the initial help of a man).  This is a special power that we are given permission to use ONLY WITHIN the bonds of marriage.  And finally, I served in the temple.  In the temple you make covenants and ordinances are performed.  In order to perform an ordinance you must have the Priesthood.  Yet, when I went through for myself all my ordinances were performed by women.  When I worked in the temple I was set aside as a temple worker (like someone is set aside for any calling) but I was not given the Priesthood.  The following is not doctrine, but I believe that women DO hold the Priesthood.  Because our gender is different, we are given different responsibilities, but I believe we are born with it in us.  I guess permission isn't granted automatically in the cases I listed, except that members are supposed to be missionaries... But generally our permission to act in God's name is given when we are set aside as missionaries, or married, or when we work in the Temple.  But even when a man receives the Priesthood he still has to report and do it with the permission of local leaders.  So, just food for thought I guess, but I think we do have access to God's power, both through the men and their Priesthood and through our own talents and strengths and gifts and power.

In conclusion, yes, there are differences between men and women in the Church.  It is because of our different strengths, not because of any inequality.  Or our difference in responsibility.  Women do not need to be called to the Priesthood to serve their fellow men care for others- we do that on our own, naturally because we are natural nurturers.  I am proud to be a woman, and my husband can tell you that I am equal to him, even if I have to remind him of it. :)  Be equal to men, but be proud to still be who you are.  Demand respect if needed and remind men that you are equal when needed.

Chick fil a

I don't think it's possible to write something completely unbiased. So I will share my opinions so you know where I'm coming from. But since it is a sensitive topic I hope my opinions will be taken as just that and not be offended by them.

I believe marriage is only between a man and a woman. I believe in tolerance and love towards gays and lesbians is still possible even while holding to this belief. I believe there are certain privileges granted to married couples that should be granted to others. (For one example, only spouses and immediate family being allowed in hospital rooms. I believe every patient deserves to not be alone. That whether it be spouse, parent, best friend or lover, others should be allowed in the room. Just limit the number at each time to keep the room uncrowded, or if the patient is lucid, let them decide.) Now on to Chick-fil-a.

I went to support Chick-fil-a. To me, yes I agreed with their opinion, but I also went because I believe restricting peoples opinions would make this country NOT free. I believe that freedom is our nation's best policy. Freedom of speech, religion, press, and there's one other. I do not feel it is right to restrict a company's business because they choose to have an opinion, even an opinion on a touchy subject. It is their right to have that opinion and speak it. They never said they would not serve gays, or even serve gays that are married, just that they do not support the marriage of two homosexuals.

I have been told that if a friend doesn't support you and doesn't love you for who you are, then they are not really a friend and not worth keeping. If a friend does not uplift you but only brings you down, don't keep them as a friend. I've done this in my own life. I've been used at times, and I don't have to put up with it, I can remove myself from the situation without becoming hateful or spiteful towards that person. So if you are gay, or believe marriage is not only between a man and a woman, no one is forcing you to go to Chick-fil-a and give them your money and your business.

When I first heard about the gay protest- where they were going to go sit in and make out in Chick-fil-a I was disgusted. At first I wondered if it was because of my opinion on gay marriage. I can say honestly that it was not because I have now been invited to a hetero-protest in protest of the gay protest- where a man and a woman will sit in and make out- and I was equally disgusted.

To me, marriage is sacred. It is a private affair between two people that is only recognized publicly. To me, there are certain kinds of pda that are acceptable means of showing this. Pda stands for public display of AFFECTION not PASSION. Hand holding, hugs, a light kiss, are appropriate signs of pda. Passion for another, to me, is private. And making out is more passionate by nature. Too few people in the world hold marriage sacred. Divorce runs rampant. I feel that whether you are hetero- or homo- sexual, if you hold marriage as sacred then you would not show your passion so casually. You would not mock that sacred union by finding anyone to make out with just to prove a point. I thought that the gays fighting for marriage held it more sacred and that was why they yearned for it so bad. If it was solely a matter of marital privileges then I believe fighting for the government to only recognize civil unions is your fight. And if they hold it sacred, then they should only make out and show passion towards someone they HAVE that passion for, not just any other gay to prove a point at Chick-fil-a. And the same goes for the other side: if you hold marriage between a man and a woman as sacred, then you are mocking your own belief by casually making out with a member of the opposite sex merely to prove a point and be spiteful.

These other protests are very childish. The first one I went to because I believe that the amendments to our Constitution mean something. The gay protest: if they do not support you and that bothers you, do not support them with your business. Do not resort to childishness. Leave foolish teenage rebellions in your teenage years and find an adult way to stand up for what you believe in.

The hetero- protest in response to the gay protest: this is even more childish. It is being done just to spite the gay community. I care about marriage because I hold it sacred and this protest is not tolerant, it is not loving, it is not standing up for the Amendments, it is not even standing up for marriage between a man and a woman. It is simply a protest because people aren't tolerant of gays and their right to an opinion. (I still feel they show disrespect to the sacred union of marriage by sharing passion so publicly in a family environment, and that there are more productive ways for them to stand up for what they believe in.) This protest shows a lack of care about marriage. And if marriage is not sacred to you, then you have no reason to keep gays from entering into it as well.

What are you fighting for?

Pro-gay marriage: are you fighting for gay marriage because marriage when recognized allows certain privileges? Or because it's a special sacred union that you would like to have? There are those like me who are against gay marriage but not against you having certain rights and privileges granted currently through marriage. And if you are fighting for marriage because it's special and sacred and having some piece of paper showing you're married means something, well then find ways to stand for what you believe that show that you keep it sacred.

Against gay marriage: what are you fighting for? Are you fighting against gay marriage because you hate gays and have no tolerance for them? Or are you fighting to keep marriage sacred? If the second, then show that you hold it sacred in your protests. That there is something special in marriage.

Teaching Homosexuality in Elementary Schools

It has been a few years since I last lived in California and I wasn't fully aware of how things were until recently moving back.  I knew my cousin was homeschooling her kids- something I didn't think she would ever do.  And I have been meeting a surprisingly increasing number of other young kids being home-schooled, instead of getting the social interaction with other kids by going to public schools.  I recently heard of a bill or a proposition that was concerning teaching homosexuality in elementary schools.  I guess they started teaching it in Elementary School, but they had to say which day they were teaching it, and several mothers took their children out of school that day.  First off, don't we still have the right to walk out of a situation if it makes us uncomfortable?  Now, I guess they want to have it be a surprise so the only option they have to avoid it is to home-school their kids.  In some ways I understand why they want to start in Elementary School, but there was still something about it that bothered me.

Elementary School is all about the basics.  The building blocks that help us through the rest of our schooling.  We don't jump straight into chemistry, or calculus, or reading the classics like Moby Dick, we are taught little by little as our understanding increases.  In my opinion, Kindergarten (sometimes Preschool now) is where kids first start learning to interact with each other, and to share and play WITH each other.  It's the time to teach them that there are differences.  Sally's favorite color may be pink, and Billy's might be blue- but that doesn't make them bad because they have different favorite colors.  Bianca's parents may speak a different language; Shaniqua may have darker skin; Ralph may only have one parent; Sean may have two dads; everyone has differences, and everyone should be nice to everyone else.  This is the extent of what they need to know in Elementary School- tolerance for others despite their differences.

Why not more?  When I was in Elementary School, in 4th grade, there was a cartoon video as an introduction to sex education.  We had to get parent permission on whether they thought their child was ready to watch a video.  Why?  Because it's ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, and some parents don't think sex ed is elementary and prefer to address matters in their own time.  Homosexuality fits into this category.  It is, after all, HomoSEXUALITY.  Middle School was where puberty was addressed.  Kids are going through it, and if their parents haven't addressed it by now, they're going to start having questions and possibly experimenting in harmful ways.  So it's better to teach them what is going on.  HERE is the time to introduce the details of homosexuality.  Sure, in Elementary School kids may have crushes, but the actual hormones associated with sexual orientation don't start flowing until when?  Puberty.  Middle School.  Now, if they want to make sure everyone hears about it at this point, I have no problem with them approaching it on a surprise basis.  Whether the parents like it or not, some children do end up gay and deserve to know what's happening.

The thing is, whether you believe homosexuality is wrong, or a sin, or whatever, it still exists.  It is REAL.  Ignorance is not bliss and it is the schools' responsibility to teach, to give kids an education.  If a situation in Elementary School pops up, then it should be approached as a mere difference that can be accepted.  My gay friends, like me (being straight) am more than just my sexual orientation- there is more to me than who I am attracted to.  Teach tolerance and love and acceptance of differences in Elementary School.  Full details aren't needed.  When hormones start acting up is the time to make sure they understand the aspects of sexuality, including homosexuality.