This is in response to John E. Richie's letter ("Human, animal analogy not effective argument," Nov. 7). Ritchie poses an interesting, yet rather twisted point. "Natural law" is not based on nature, as in animals. Let us presume this to be true. Even then, you cannot say that "natural" law is based on thought and morals, because they are only as natural as the society in which they were conceived. Morals, rights and wrongs, are as socially constructed as the laws that we abide by, or try to change. In some cultures, murder was perfectly acceptable if it was justifiable.

But let us look at the "nature" of men another way. Studies have shown that any culture always has its "deviant" numbers. The number always seems to fall around 10 to 15 percent. So maybe it is in the "nature" of humankind to have its homosexual ("deviant," gay, queer, or whatever else you may want to call it) numbers.

But what else is "natural law"? If you go by intellect, "right and wrong" as you said, then I would say that promoting acceptance, caring and understanding might be considered natural law, while promoting hatred would be against natural law.