The debate over Nature and Nurture goes far beyond the basic disagreements between scientists about who's right or who's wrong, but is rather at the heart of many serious widespread issues prevalent in the world today.  These issues include: homosexuality, alcoholism, and self- identity (behavior, personality, etc.). These issues exemplify why this debate is so important and why it is worth serious discussion. If homosexuality is caused by a gene mutation instead of choice, perhaps that would change some people's perspective on gay marriage and gay rights? On the other hand, if it were true that an individual's behavior is more significantly influenced by the people who raise them and how they are raised, would society react differently? Scientists on both sides of this debate offer research that must be examined and analyzed in great detail before an opinion is reached. I will evaluate whether one's genes or environment is more influential in regards to each of the aforementioned issues.

For years, scientists 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 environmental conditioning. With these biased mindsets, scientists on both sides only look at cases that support their side of the argument instead of looking at the broader picture. Often one side of the argument seems to have greater influence depending on the specific issue. Instead of believing an issue is completely the result of one's genes or environment I argue that both Nature and Nurture might have significance and therefore I evaluate which one is more supported through specific articles and data. Lastly, one difference that one might see in my evaluation opposed to many scientists that have been studying this subject for years is that I also use devices such as the rhetorical strategy of pathos to support my decisions regarding certain parts of this debate instead of just citing facts to support my argument.

One of the key issues seen throughout the world today often associated with the Nature vs. Nurture debate is homosexuality. To understand the seriousness of this issue, one must examine the many struggles homosexual individuals must deal with on a daily basis. To start, public school harassment and discrimination are two of the most widespread problems with which homosexuals must deal on a daily basis. 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 laws necessary to protect them from this inequality. Aside from discrimination in basic rights such as education and freedom of choice, there are also many health related issues associated with homosexuality. Recent studies have suggested that medical care does not support homosexuals as much as it does straight people ("Gay and Lesbian Issues"). When 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 would likely be much easier and therefore, the stress may not affect their health as much. Similarly, if bullying was minimized and the guilt was relieved, rates of health disorders among homosexuals might decrease. Often people who do not support gay rights believe that homosexuality is an individual's choice. Many of these people also have the opinion that homosexuality is morally wrong and refer to the Bible for support because it specifically mentions sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex as a sin. Researchers, however have been looking into the biological side of this issue, and have begun to find evidence that suggest that homosexuality might not be all about one's choice. Over the past few years, many scientists have found structural differences in 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" (LeVay qtd. in Kingman). There is no conclusive evidence that genetics is the main cause of homosexuality, but research is coming closer and closer every day 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" (Allen qtd. in Kingman). If homosexuality is proven to be associated with biological reasons discrimination against these individuals could be minimized improving greatly their quality of life.

Along with the many health issues that go along with homosexuality, alcoholism is another important subtopic associated with the nature vs. nurture debate. Alcoholism is a serious issue that impacts the lives of many families every day. According to 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 and Dryden-Edwards). With the vast impact of this issue, it is essential to know what factors, whether biological, environmental, or both, have the greatest influence on alcoholism. As may be expected, there is evidence to support both sides. Growing up, if a child repeatedly sees one or both of his or her parents drinking each night, that child might develop drinking patterns similar to his or her 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 on how alcohol can affect certain individuals. One study suggests "that people of Asian descent 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 suggests "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 examples exemplify the general effects of genes on different individuals, many hereditary genes play an extremely significant role in alcoholism. In 1984, Dr. Donald Goodwin observed adopted children whose biological fathers were alcoholics to determine if alcoholism runs in the family thus supporting its association with Nature vs. Nurture. 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" therefore, "evidence that alcoholism is genetically influenced became so strong that it was time to start looking for what might be inherited" (Blakeslee C1). Similarly, another case report on the effects of alcoholism states, "Results from 7 twin studies and 1 half-sibling study point to a significant genetic component" therefore, "the adopted-away sons of biological alcoholics were 3-4 times more likely to become alcoholics and many were more likely to have repeated a grade, to have suffered language disorders, and to have experienced family disruption" (Knop). Both reports not only show how genetics affects alcoholism, but also highlight the many unseen problems that arise with individuals who suffer from inherited alcoholism.

From a firsthand 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 promote addiction more than his, I would more likely become an alcoholic as an adult. Although Nature and Nurture may both contribute to alcoholism to some degree, genetics seems to be more of an influential factor. While homosexuality and alcoholism in my evaluation is more influenced by genetics, an individual's self-identity seems to lend 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 this debate was tested 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" (Kagan qtd. in 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 live away from violence and anger. While one's genes make up the foundation of 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 attack 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 et al. 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, one can 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. An article in an issue of the International Journal of offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology explains: "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. 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 other words, some individuals based on their DRD2 receptors can be more likely to act violently and commit a crime when exposed to a hostile and or criminal environment. 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 effects  are the main reasons 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 whether Nature or Nurture has the greatest influence. As we looked into each element, I showed how my evaluations were 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 cause them to lean more towards a same sex relationship. Similarly, while alcoholism can be suppressed by things like religion, the core cause comes from inherited genes passed down from generation to generation among certain families. Lastly, while one's personality comes from a mix of parental 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, it is clear that the study of Nature and Nurture has significant influence on many social issues. As scientists discover more and more about certain diseases and behaviors, the Nature vs. Nurture debate will continue to fuel lively discussions for years to come.
