Nature vs. Nurture

First off, the nature aspect is that people do what they do because of their genes.  Behavior is based off of animal instincts.  The nurture side says that we do what we do because of our environment.  It is what we were taught to do by our parents, friends, and other environmental factors.  Like we were told in class, nature determines the range of our skill set and abilities, but nurture determines where we fall on this range.  Still, scientists fight over this issue every day, as not all traits are specifically nurture or nature.  For example, the most argued point in the nature/nurture debate is that of gays.  It is widely known that gays don't "choose to be that way", but where do they get their sexual orientation.  Is it learned or is it inherited. 

Homosexuality was first thought to be a mental disorder by the APA, but it was later removed as such.  Now, the issue is still hotly debated.  Many tests have been run on the homosexual brain vs. the heterosexual brain.  In many tests, parts of the hypothalamus in gay men was almost always double the size of that in heterosexual men.  The same was also true in women.  Also, tests were done on the amounts of androgen in the brain of developing humans.  The theory was tested on rats.  Those who were exposed to large amounts of androgens during development were attracted to female rats, whether the rat was male or female.  The opposite was also true.  If deprived of androgens, male and female rats were submissive and attracted to male rats.  All of this seems to explain sexual orientation as a biological issue.  As more proof, tests have been conducted to find the "gay gene", and it is thought to have been found.

Even with all the proof, many people still think gayness is a nurture issue.  They base their beliefs on the thoughts that the family and close friends determine the sexual orientation.  When the family is not consistent with gender roles in the household, kids become confused and eventually become homosexual.  Too bad their is absolutely no proof for this.

My vote goes to the biological point of view for the issue of homosexuality.

In general, proponents of the nature point of view point out that if genetics had no part in the issue, then fraternal twins would be completely different if raised apart.  This is certainly not the case; in fact, many separated at birth twins exhibit many of the same characteristics. 

The nurture standpoint is headed by John Watson, who raised the term "blank slate".  He worked with orphan children, and famously concluded that if given 12 infants, he could raise each of them to specialize in any area that he wanted, whether it be medicine, law, or technology, regardless of his or her tendencies, race, or talents.

From what we have learned, most characteristics of humans are not strictly due to either nature or nurture.  Instead, it is a delicate combination of both that determines what we will become when we grow up.