[Skybird]

As far as I know science still has not made a finalverdict on whether left or right hand being dominant is egnetically marked or not. I tend to think that it is a consequence from other factors, and thus an implication:

It is known that the left side of the brain controls the right side of the body, and the right side of the brain the left side of the body. The brain centre for speech is located in the left brain hemispheree for the huge majority of people, with very small groups only having that centre in the right side of their brain, or having speech functionality distributed over both brain hemispheres. This is no causal link between speech and hand dominance of course, but there is a strong correlation between this socalled lateralisation, and hand dominance. So while there maybe indeed are no genetic markers deciding whether your left or right hand is dominant, this nevertheless could be indirectly genetically determined by the genetic code deciding on the lateralisation inside the brain: where you have you speech centre in your brain (and then assuming that there is some kind of a link between speech and finemotoric action with hands, which necessarily includes cognition, neuroscience and psychology into the overall assessment). Complex stuff - we still do not know for sure, it seems. If there is such a link as the correlation seems to indicate, it probably hints at an advantage in the history of evolution if the species has one hand dominant and more capable than the other, and having the neural control for that located in the same brain hemisphere like that for verbal communication. Speech and tool-using, both with strong references to this other phenomenon: practical intelligence. I cannot nail it down precisely, but maybe you have the same association here like I have when putting these qualities together. To me, in a way it makes sense. But I would not want to write a paper about it.

On the marriage and child adoption equality that you mention, I of course strongly object, due to the vital importance of families for any human society, and the psychological differentiation I make between a mother and a father, also, I want the family status being given spoecial protection and appreciation by society, and I see no merits being scored fro two women or two men being homosexual and living together. They are free to do so, already now, but it deserves no special recognition or appreciation, it is no service to society to live together as they are, or to be gay/lesbian. While some children become orphants, or loose one parent to death of divorce or other factors, this nevertheless is no desirable nor a natural(in the meaning of normal) circumstance). And a female mother is not the same like a homosexual man and a male father is not the same like a lesbian women. Mother and father serve different role models, and women and man tick differently anyway. I consider it wanted by nature that children get educated by both, and that this - or the absence of this - influences emotional, cognitive and intellectual development. We know for exmaple that childrne beign risen by one parent only have a significantly higher,a much higher probability to develope a personality disorder or a neurosis later in their lives, from their 30th year on. A mother and a gay man are two very different things, and the latter cannot compensate the absence of the first. That is not an issue of wanting or not wanting, loving or not loving, but an issue of traits people carry - or carry not.

The epigene issue is saying that homosexuality is an accident, not a natural genetic design option, and that goes queer with many people, who now aggressively imply that homosexuals should be lowered by calling them the result of an accident. Well, maybe all life on earth is the result of a cosmic accident, an event with extremely low probability to happen. I do not think of gays as the incarnation of a biological accident, but I insist on not normalising what is not normal. Being an albino or siamese twin does not strip the effected individual its human rights and dignity, but still what happened to them are genetic defects, and it has as a result that they are not human people represnrting a nhaturl normality oh human species. They are exceptions. Homosexuals also are exceptions, of a different kind. Transgenderism is an exception, and probably is not a wanted design option by nature, since it makes no sense: it is an accident, something went wrong at some point. Let's recognise the fact as fact, and accept it as a reality without distorting that reality for emotional or ideological reasons. when you are born with three instead of four fingers, that also is an accident, something went wrong. It makes you different. It does not negatively hinder you in your abilities, most likely, accept certain things having to do with the way you can grab things, that is all.

Normality is to recognise these things as they are, without trying to censor their perception or lobbying for them to gain priviliges. There is no merit won by having three instead of four fingers. A three-fingered person deserve no special recognition or appreciation for it. He also do not deserve being discriminated for it.