Sorry, I didn't realise the newspaper had a weird payment structure.
If you search for the title of the article with no cookies showing previous viewings it will let you read the article but direct links or re-viewings get a paywall.
So here's a relevant excerpt:
Professor Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th / early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.
Unions in Pre-Modern Europe lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union", having invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these Thy servants [N and N] grace to love another and to abide unhated and not cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".
Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.
Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.
While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it was only from about the 14th century that antihomosexual feelings swept western Europe. Yet same sex unions continued to take place.
At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578 a many as 13 couples were "married" at Mass with the apparent cooperation of the local clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together", according to a contemporary report.
Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. Many questionable historical claims about the church have been made by some recent writers in this newspaper.
Boswell's academic study however is so well researched and sourced as to pose fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their attitudes towards homosexuality.
For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a cowardly cop-out. The evidence shows convincingly that what the modern church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort.
It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in the name of, and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ.
Some things go in cycles.
The other thing is where you draw the borders of "society". Someone living in australia, who was allowed to limit things to australia rather than the world and on the condition that they got to keep modern tech etc might find 30,000 years ago living in extended family groups to be preferable (close connections with family does tend to be good for peoples mental health and modern society can tend to spread families across the globe).
Some things you'd put under [moral] are also likely artefacts of modern technology and economics. Society has all this lovely excess production capacity that it can use. If you were an elderly or disabled Inuit a thousand years ago you'd eventually be left on the ice when the tribe moved on. Not out of hatered but out of simple necesity. People didn't want to leave mom on the ice to die. They just didn't have the excess production capacity to carry members of sciety who couldn't carry themselves.
Compare that to now where our society is so rich that health services can plough the equivilent of a dozen or so peoples entire lifetime productivity into individuals with significant care needs.
Refusing to allow people to limit it to a single country and instead the world also makes it less likely that you'll convince them of anything. They care about [America] ,[Australia] or perhaps even their state 10,20,30 years ago, not the mess of sub saharan africa.
As your scenario is described I wouldn't willingly get into your time machine even if the dial was set to "now" because odds are I'd find myself dying of cholera in a refugee camp or farming rice on the side of a mountain somewhere in asia.
It would be like playing the misery simulator for real:http://www.educationalsimulations.com/
So if they're talking about "society" you might be hearing "the world" but they almost certainly mean "my society, my town, my county, my country" and you aren't going to convince them of anything by making them roll for whether they end up as a palestinian refugee.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.