But, if the early christian church was performing same sex unions, doesn't it stand to reason that they had a more immediate understanding of Christ's view on love an marriage, unfiltered by several massive political changes to the Bible?

But, if the early christian church was performing same sex unions, doesn't it stand to reason that they had a more immediate understanding of Christ's view on love an marriage, unfiltered by several massive political changes to the Bible?

The least sound, if longest monograph, is Boswell's Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (1994) which seeks to identify orthodox liturgical precedents for gay marriages in a society that normally prescribed death for sodomites.
...
Boswell's attempt to find medieval precedents for gay marriages is misleading. True, he has assembled neglected documents in Greek and Old Slavic tongues from various archives that bless male couples. Not one of his "many" Orthodox liturgies, however, sanctions carnal unions; in fact, they always specify "spiritual brotherhood" or "absence of scandal." This clearly implies that they are not, unlike heterosexual marriages, to be carnal. Churches which demanded celibacy for monks and bishops and allowed matrimony only for those too weak to abstain from sex altogether would hardly have sanctioned what they called "unnatural" sex or the "abominable sin against nature." In neither the Jewish nor the Christian scriptures is there a single endorsement of samesex sex.
...
Boswell imagined that these same-sex unions, as he described them, that he found in Greek and Slavic had parallels in Latin for Catholics but that they have been lost. That may be, but such asexual brotherhoods can serve as precursors for modern (homosexual) gay marriage only by a wide stretch of the imagination and with blatant disregard for both scripture and tradition.
...
All Boswell's erudition and hairsplitting can't make a gay marriage out of a spiritual bonding.

...that established churches condoned such "sins" and created liturgies to bless couples so engaged (the love so decadent and unnatural it was not even supposed to be mentioned among Christians) is an anachronistic twist not heretofore imagined and should not be taken seriously.

The early Christian church also slaughtered unbelievers by the millions,

stagnated all scientific progress

and essentially ran the governments of Europe for about 500 years due to their near-monopoly on literacy,

and made holy war on pretty much the entire known world at one time or another.

It took a series of monumental catastrophes (The Great Famine, The Black Death) to discredit them and start reforms, as people finally figured out that prayer would not, as the church said, summon God to solve all their problems.

So, I really don't think we should give the early church much credit for what they did, unless of course you want today's Christians (>2 billion people) to believe that this is actually the correct way to run things.

The early Christian church also slaughtered unbelievers by the millions, stagnated all scientific progress and essentially ran the governments of Europe for about 500 years due to their near-monopoly on literacy, and made holy war on pretty much the entire known world at one time or another. It took a series of monumental catastrophes (The Great Famine, The Black Death) to discredit them and start reforms, as people finally figured out that prayer would not, as the church said, summon God to solve all their problems. So, I really don't think we should give the early church much credit for what they did, unless of course you want today's Christians (>2 billion people) to believe that this is actually the correct way to run things.

So, you those of you posting here support a marriage like ceremony, similar to those described here, between men?

Considering what's been posted concerning Boswell and his conclusions, I'd call it a 5 yard loss, myself.

You're not helping.

Considering what's been posted concerning Boswell and his conclusions, I'd call it a 5 yard loss, myself.

So, you those of you posting here support a marriage like ceremony, similar to those described here, between men?

Eh, not so sure I agree with those attacks on Boswell.

It hardly did any such thing. You're exaggerating the numbers significantly, and it did so against opponents that had already shown themselves quite willing to oppress and attack Christians. You're also not describing the "early church" you're describing the church in the middle ages, especially AFTER the Great Schism, or about a thousand years into its history.

not at all

It hardly did any such thing. It did not have a monopoly or even a near-monopoly on literacy, and Popes really had little control over most governments, even the Holy Roman Empire. Ultimately secular rulers held the military power. Maybe you'd be wise to consider that Boniface VIII was slapped and beaten by the King of France and held in captivity, and other such wrangling between clergy and secular rulers were common; the threat of excommunication being far less effective than people often think.

If by "entire known world" you mean PAlestine, sure. You should also remember that by that time Muslims had attacked and dismantled churches and shrines in Spain, not to mention the Church of the Holy Sepulchere, and that the aggression was not merely unprovoked attacks on muslims who had been innocently coexisting until that time.

The Catholic church continues to try and exert church authority over secular governments, even in this day and age. We can see that with the threats they make in places like DC, their work on behalf of denying marriage equality, their support for legislation that actually *increases* unwanted pregnancy, and their attempts to force legislators to do as the church wills.