對於「神到底是支持或禁止、贊成或反對人類的同性戀婚姻？」這樣的難題，你可以從這篇對話解說中，獲得一個「啟發你更高智慧而發現你對此問題的答案」的解答：
有關【神對人類「同性戀婚姻」的看法】(same sex marriage)
你們的文化是從你們的「信念」產生出來的(Your culture emerges from your beliefs.)。而那些信念一旦變成了宗教教義，就會告訴你們接觸宗教的人，不只聲稱「人類該需要什麼、該求什麼、該想什麼」，也聲稱「神需要什麼、神想要什麼」。當你們的社會開始創造它自己，這些情況會在許多重要的面向上顯露出來。
尼爾：可以給我一個例子嗎？
給你一個絕佳的例子：同性戀婚姻。(Same sex marriage.)
尼爾：哦，好傢伙。
那麼，你想避開爭論，或是想清楚了解它呢？
尼爾：我想要清楚地了解。
那就準備好一起搖動這「堆滿蘋果的手推車」吧！(shake the apple cart 意指推翻某一理論或顛覆信念。)
尼爾：開始吧！
很多社會有反對同性戀婚姻的法律，卻鮮少有支持它的法律。然而，在民法裡並沒有提出「為何該是這樣」的合理解釋。這樣的私人行為(liaisons)並沒有傷害或損及任何人。
尼爾：有些人不會同意。他們會說，同性戀婚姻會傷害我們的道德品質。他們會說，做為一個社會，我們受到損害了，而那損害在我們生活的每個領域會慢慢產生效應。對社會沒有什麼益處和自然的東西必須受到尊敬的話，那我們所持有的每個正派價值也可以肆無忌憚地被丟在一邊。這在道德上殺死了我們。那是他們會做的爭辯。
就因為同性的終生夥伴關係是「不道德」的，它就該被民法禁止？
尼爾：是的，就是這論點。
所以社會該通過法律，禁止所有「不道德」的行為？
尼爾：沒辦法。我們無法訂出足夠的法律條文去禁止。
喔，有的！你們有辦法的。你們能通過法律反對你們覺得「不道德的」任何事物。
你們能通過法律反對描繪或展示人或動物的畫像（偶像、神像）、反對在一個商業場所放音樂（除了聖樂之外）、反對沒剃鬍鬚、反對婦女在沒有血緣關係的男性陪伴下到公共場所，甚至反對沒有從頭到腳包緊的女人出現在公共場所。
你們可以在這些法律裡，建立一套嚴厲的懲罰。比如，被發現違法的當時當地，被「道德警察」公開地鞭打。
尼爾：喂，等一下。這未免有點扯太遠了。
哦，是嗎？誰說的？萬一你們社會裡人人都同意呢？
尼爾：社會裡不會人人都同意這種武斷且任性的法律的。
但如果是一個強大基本教義派的少數族群在掌權，強迫社會服從他們建立在「道德」上的法律呢？
尼爾：我明白你的意思了。
或，如果多數人們被說服成對於某事情，例如像同性戀婚姻，是「對」或「錯」，因為高度影響力地位的人們直率地告訴其他人說這是錯的？
尼爾：你知道嗎？曾經有一度，我會說，「誰會那樣告訴他們？誰會像那樣藉立法支持道德？」不過，這幾天，我在報紙上發現了答案：
梵蒂岡市（二00三年，七月三十一日）───梵蒂岡這星期四發起了反對男同性戀結婚的全球性運動，警告天主教徒的政治人物說，支持同性婚姻是「嚴重不道德的」，並力勸非天主教徒人士參加這示威攻擊活動......
從這個報導的故事，你看見你們的抗議並沒有建立在「公民的律法」上。你們的抗議是建立在「你們已做的一個道德判斷」上───而這個道德的評斷來自於，你們認為這一切和「神要什麼」有關。
尼爾：或，毋寧是，神不要什麼。
是的。以目前的例子來說，反對同性戀婚姻的禁忌，是個靈性(心靈)上的約束───基於你們認為神對人類個人隱私方面有偏好，例如性行為。
這是相同於多年來，你們禁止某些特定的性習慣，卻不禁止其他性習慣的法律，甚至就連種族之間的「異族通婚」也禁止的思維。如果教宗(the pope)告訴你們，神完全不反對這些，這將會在你們整個立法系統引起強烈的反彈，毀滅你們所有過去和現在許多法律上的道德辯護。當然，目前的教宗永遠不會這樣告訴你們，所以我必須告訴你們這些。
尼爾：此時此地你是不是在明確地表達，神完全不反對同性戀或同性戀婚姻？
我說的是我一直在(整部與神對話裡)說的。關於人類行為，神沒有偏好，也沒有評斷。我知道你們認為神有，而我知道這「神真的沒有」的說法，確實會把許多人深信的一切都毀掉，但這卻是真實的。
你們對同性戀已經做了評判，而這就是「宗教與其教義如何變成非宗教、公民社會的文化及人類經驗的一部分」的最佳例子，不論人類信不信神。
摘自《重新定義神》第九章
And so of course your culture emerges from your beliefs. And those beliefs, once they become religious doctrine, purport to tell the religious among you not only what humans should want and desire, but what God wants and desires. And this shows up in many important ways as your society creates itself.
Neale: Can you give me an example?
I can give you an excellent one: Same-sex marriage.
Neale: Oh, boy.
Yes, well, do you want to be noncontroversial, or do you want to clearly understand?
Neale: I want to clearly understand.
Then get ready to shake the apple cart.
Neale: Go ahead.
Many societies have laws against same-sex marriage, and very few have laws supporting it. Yet there is no sound reason in civil law why this should be true. No one is being hurt or damaged by such liaisons.
Neale: There are those who would disagree. They would say that it damages our moral fiber. As a society, they would say, we are damaged, and that plays its trickle-down effect in every area of our lives. Nothing good and natural has to be honored, every decent value we hold can be cast aside with impunity. This kills us, morally. That would be the argument they would make.
So same-gender life partnership should be prohibited by civil law based on the fact that it is "immoral"?
Neale: Yes, that is the argument.
And so society should pass laws prohibiting all "immoral" behavior?
Neale: Well, we'll never be able to do that. We couldn’t write enough laws to do that.
Oh, yes, you could. You could pass laws against whatever you felt was "immoral."
You could pass laws against drawing or displaying pictures of people or animals ("graven images"), against playing music (other than sacred music) in a place of business, against being unshaven, against females leaving their home without being accompanied by a male blood relative, and even against fe-males being seen in public with-out a head-to-toe covering over their body.
And you could build severe consequences into those laws, such as being flogged in public, right then and there, at the moment the infraction is discovered, by the Morals Police.
Neale: Well, now, wait a minute. That's going a bit too far.
Oh, yes? Says who? What if everyone in your society agreed?
Neale: Everyone in a society would not agree to such arbitrary and capricious laws.
But what if a minority of powerful fundamentalists sim-ply took charge and forced the society to obey its laws based on "morality”?
Neale: I see your point.
Or what if the majority of people were convinced of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of something like, say, same-gender unions because people in highly influential places simply told them it was wrong?
Neale: You know, there was a time when I would have said, "But who would tell them that? Who would support morality by legislation like that?" These days, however, I find the answer in my daily newspaper….
VATICAN CITY (July 31, 2003)—The Vatican launched a global campaign against gay marriages Thursday, warning Catholic politicians that support of same-sex unions was "gravely immoral," and urging non-Catholics to join the offensive.
You see from this news story that your objections are not based in civil law. Your objections are based in a moral judgment that you have made—and that moral judgment comes from your understanding of what you think that God wants with regard to all of this.
Neale: Or, rather, what God doesn't want.
Yes. The taboo against same-sex marriage, to use the current example, is a spiritual restriction, based on the idea that God has a preference in the matter of how individuals behave sexually in the privacy of their own homes.
This is the same thinking that kept laws on the books for many years prohibiting certain specific sexual practices while not prohibiting others, and even prohibiting "mixed marriages" between races. If the pope told you that God had nothing against any of this, it would send shock waves through your legal system, destroying all moral justification for many of your laws, past and present. Of course, the present pope will never tell you this, so I am going to have to tell you this.
Neale: Are you saying, categorically, here and now, that God has nothing against homosexuality, or gay marriages?
I am saying what I have always said. God has no preference and makes no judgment
with regard to human behavior. I know you think that God does, and I know that the idea that God doesn't really ruins everything, but that's the truth.
You have made a judgment about homosexuality, and this is an excellent example of how religions and their teachings be-come part of the nonreligious, civil-society culture and experience of human beings, be they believers in God or not.
