I would encourage John Ritchie ("Human, animal analogy not effective argument," Nov. 7) to read Peter Buck's letter again ("Group fails to explain 'natural law' definition," Nov. 4). Buck did not say that anything should be based on natural law; that was the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property's (TFP) claim. It was the TFP representatives that alluded to nature, and Buck's direct and factual rebuttal proved them wrong. He did not say that humans should take their cue from animals; he merely stated that homosexuality does occur naturally. Obviously, the problem is that you use natural law to justify your intolerance of homosexuality, and yet you don't include nature in the definition. The end result is circular logic; you use your morals to define natural law, then you use natural law to justify your morals.