The debate over Nature and Nurture goes far beyond the basic quarrels between two scientist about who's right or who's wrong, but is rather the roots of serious issues found throughout the world today. Some of these issues seen today include: homosexuality, alcoholism, and one's identity (behavior, personality, etc.). From the list above, many can see why this debate is an important issue worth discussing. If homosexuality is caused by a gene mutation instead of choice, could that change people's whole perspective on gay marriage and gay rights? On the other side of the spectrum, could it be true that someone's behavior could be influenced by the people or group that bred them and also by the place in which they were raised up? Both sides of this debate deal with significant issues seen today that must be examined in greater detail in order to be able to propose a plan for the future. Through the use of Aristotelian's appeals, I will evaluate the seriousness of many issues regarding the Nature and Nurture debate and will conclude whether one's genes or environment is more influential in each particular situation.

For years, Scientist have proposed their opinions regarding the Nature vs. Nurture debate as one answer fits all. They have either chosen to believe the biological approach that focuses on genetic, hormonal, and chemical explanations or they believe in the humanism and behaviorism approach that all behavior is influenced by society and all knowledge is learned through environment conditioning. With this closed mindset, scientist only looked at cases that would support their side of the argument instead of looking at the bigger picture that these issues are becoming more and more critical as time progresses. As I begin to examine this debate, I will be open-minded and believe that each side of the argument might be more influential depending on the case at hand. Instead of believing one issue is completely caused by one's genes or environment, I will agree that each might have some significance and therefore I will evaluate which one is more supported through specific articles and data. Lastly, one difference that one might see in my evaluation opposed to many scientist that have been studying this subject for years is that I will also be using devices such as pathos to support my decisions regarding certain parts of this debate instead of just citing facts to support my argument.

The first part of this debate, homosexuality, is seen throughout the news almost everyday. To express the seriousness of this issue, one must look at the many struggles homosexual people have to deal with on a daily basis. To start, public school harassment and discrimination are one of the most known problems dealing with homosexuality. Homophobia, which literally means the fear of homosexuals, and heterosexism which is the belief that everyone should be heterosexual, are the most notable beliefs that cause discrimination among homosexuals. These beliefs can cause a range of impacts, for example, if you are a young gay person you may not be allowed to marry the love of your life. Even the federal government doesn't have some laws that protect them from inequality. Aside from the discrimination side, there are many health issues associated with homosexuals. Recent studies have suggested that medical care is not supporting homosexuals as much as it is straight people ("Gay and Lesbian Issues"). While homosexuals deal with constant stress about whether they will ever be accepted by their families, friends, and society as a whole, they become prime candidates for health issues. This, at its core, is why pathos makes this issue so important. If research proved that homosexuality is genetic, having to "come out" to loved one's and friends will likely be a lot easier and therefore the pressure may not affect someone's health as much. Similarly, if bullying was minimized and the guilt was suppressed, rates of health disorders among homosexuals might decrease. Many people believe today that homosexuality is an individual's choice. Instead of having a biological difference, they choose throughout their lifetime to be romantic with someone of the same sex. Many people look to the Bible for support because it specifically mentions sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex as a sin. While many people have that opinion, researchers on the other hand have been looking into the biological side to this issue. Over the past few years, many scientists have found structural differences with certain parts of the brain between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Recently, Simon LeVay, a researcher at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, discovered "that the volume of an area of the brain called INAH-3 was more than twice as large in heterosexual men as in homosexual men. INAH-3 is part of the anterior hypothalamus, a region known to regulate sexual behavior in male monkeys" (Kingman). There is no conclusive evidence that genetics is the main cause of homosexuality, but research is coming closer and closer everyday to prove this is the case. If this becomes true, UCLA's Laura Allen says, "In the United States there is a law that protects people who have immutable characteristics, such as race, from discrimination. So if homosexuality were proved also to be an immutable characteristic, then the law would have to be changed" (Kingman). Along with the many health issues that go along with homosexuality, alcoholism is another important subtopic associated with the nature vs. nurture debate.

Similar to homosexuality, alcoholism is a serious issue that impacts the lives of many families each day. From the emedicinehealth website article, "Nearly 17 million adults in the U.S. are dependent on alcohol or have other alcohol-related problems, and about 88,000 people die from preventable alcohol-related causes" (Cunha). With the importance of this issue, it is essential to know what factors, whether biological, environmental, or both, influence alcoholism the most. As many can infer, there is evidence to support each side. Growing up, if a child repeatedly sees one or both of his parents drinking each night, that child might develop drinking patterns similar to his parents. If one grew up in a family and/or a religion that was strictly against consuming alcohol, there is a greater likelihood that even if alcoholic genes ran in the family they would never suffer the effects of alcoholism. On the other side of the spectrum, research published by many famous journals suggests that genes play a significant role and how alcohol can affect certain individuals. One study suggests "that people of Asian decent have a specific type of gene that makes the experience of alcohol unpleasant" ("Alcoholism: Nature vs. Nurture"). On the other hand, research from another journal believes "that some people have a gene variant that allows signals of pleasure to move quickly from one portion of the brain to the other, when alcohol is in play" ("Alcoholism: Nature vs. Nurture"). While these demonstrate the effects of genes on opposite individual, many hereditary genes play a huge part in alcoholism. In 1984, Dr. Donald Goodwin observed adopted children whose biological fathers were alcoholics to determine if alcoholism runs in the family. In a New York Times Article, Goodwin established "that biological sons of male alcoholics are four times as likely to develop the disease as sons of nonalcoholic... evidence that alcoholism is genetically influenced became so strong that it was time to start looking for what might be inherited" (Blakeslee C1).

From a first hand experience, alcoholism runs in my personal family tree. Some of my closest family members suffer from alcohol addiction, and it is painful for them and everyone around them. Not only is it difficult to watch, but it also puts me at risk if I choose to drink. While I might drink the same as one of my friends, if my genes promoted addiction more than his, I most likely would become an alcoholic as an adult. Through the use of ethos and logos, although both may contribute to alcoholism to some degree, genetics seems to be more of an influential factor. All studies are credible and reliable if they are to be published in The New York Times. Similarly, statistics displayed on Foundations Recovery Network websites must express significant logos along with credible ethos to be taught to people worldwide. While homosexuality and alcoholism in my evaluation is more influenced by genetics, the identity of someone may lean more to the influence of one's environment.

One's identity is comprised of many characteristics, but for this essay we will focus on his or her personality and behavior. When looking at one's personality, the best way to discover the truth behind the most influential factors come from the numerous twin studies conducted in the later 1980's. The way they tested this debate was simple: compare twins separated at birth with those who have stayed together. If the twins who were raised in the same environment were more similar than the twins separated, the environment would be the answer. After many of these experiments were conducted, a developmental psychologist at Harvard University named Jerome Kagan commented, " If in fact twins reared apart are that similar, this study is extremely important for understanding how personality is shaped... it implies that some aspects of personality are under a great degree of genetic control" (Goleman C1). Although these results show that genetics are more influential than the environment, my evaluation that the environment is the most influential comes into play when talking about one's behavior. If, for example, a male has a genetic makeup making him more likely to be aggressive, it's essential that he lives away from violence and anger. While one's genes makeup his or her personality, it is the influence of the environment to either suppress or provoke these different traits. To test these beliefs, Bandura's Bobo Doll Experiment was tested in 1961. In this experiment, children were tested under two environments. The first environment was a group that witnessed their parents violently attacks an innocent looking clown (Bobo). The second environment was a group that witnessed their parents show no aggression towards Bobo. Each group of children were then brought into the same room with the clown, and the group that saw their parents attack the clown was exponentially more violent than the non-violent parent group (Bandura 63). This experiment brought about a range of new discoveries. For example, many have seen recently the children armies being created in numerous third world countries. Now that it has been proven that aggression and violence is created through the sights and actions of their parents, can one hope that these children were not born killers but rather unfortunately born into a horrific environment? Similarly, another important subtopic deals with criminology and the many new theories that are arising. One issue of the International Journal of offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology explains that "Biogenetic research points ever more frequently toward the nondismissal of some of the behaviorist observations regarding human maladaptive behavior of early criminologists. It seems that human genetic polymorphism seems to predispose some persons with the DRD2 to being victimized when being exposed to a criminologist environment" (Bio- nature and nurture crime). With this theory, some individuals with a certain dopamine receptor gene (DRD2), when exposed to aggressive environments, have a greater tendency to commit crime" (Palermo 619). In the future, could lawyers use this evidence to help some criminals get a lighter sentence? With all this said, when it comes down to deciding about which side of this argument is most important to one's identity, my belief is that the environment and its many aspects is the main reason people are who they are.

While focusing on many important issues like homosexuality, alcoholism, and one's identity, it is easy to be confused as to which side of Nature and Nurture is causing these events to happen. As we looked into each element, I showed how my evaluation was more preferable but I also acknowledged the strengths of each opposing argument. When talking about homosexuality, while many today believe it is a choice, I believe that biological factors within certain individuals is causing them to lean more towards a same sex relationship. Similarly, while alcoholism can be suppressed by things like religion, the core comes from inherited genes past down from generation to generation among certain families. Lastly, while one's personality comes from a mixed genetic makeup at birth proven by numerous twin studies, one's identity and behavior is determined more by the environment in which they grow up. If a person is born with an aggressive personality and if they grow up in violent places this gene will be expressed. On the other hand, if this aggressive person lives in a peaceful place, he or she is unlikely to show their hostility. With all these examples and many more, this debate is such a crucial topic to learn about. As scientist discover more and more about certain diseases and behaviors, this issue will cause debate for many more things to come.
