Post-script: Religious perspective.

Sorry this post was a bit late in coming out but here it is now!
First of all, on Origen, a writer who was very influential in early Christianity, my sources unanimously said that while much of his early work was credible, he " seemed to lose his marbles somewhat as he got older." Having said that, some of his work is accepted by the Church, though he is not recognized as a saint or anything. Thus, "I would say Origen is viewed in the Church as a warning to us that no matter how wise we may be, we can always stumble and fall." Then, whether we could use his writings as a Church view or accepted by the Church must be carefully examined however it is Origen's "thinking on such things as pre-incarnate souls and other matters clearly (that) strayed from true belief by a wide margin." In that case, you could still make a pro-homosexuality in Orthodoxy argument but "a good bit of his writings are considered Heretical." Moving on, the Epistle of Barnabus, which has been used in anti-homosexuals in Orthodoxy arguments, "is not considered Scripture by the Orthodox." This is because the authorship can not be verified in a way acceptable to the Church. Some "are considered to be good historical and/or theological documents but did not rise to the level of Scripture." Which cuts out that argument of anti-homosexuals in Orthodoxy. Finally, as for the examples of homosexual relationships among the Saints, my religious teachers were hesitant to say the least. Sts. Perpetua and Felicitas were more about "mothers and expectant mothers " who they are actually the patrons of in the Catholic tradition. For David and Jonathan, they "clearly loved each other" but my teachers were of the mind that " this is the kind of love that fellow warriors and great friends have for each other" and they did not think that they had the type of same-sex love that apologists for homosexuality "would like to read into that relationship." The kiss that they do share in 1 Samuel was "more common in old times and devoid of sexuality." Sts. Sergius and Bacchus' relationship was also grouped in the same way as David and Jonathan's. In fact, one teacher said "I don’t think it was anything like what would be considered a same sex relationship today (although they were paraded around in women’s clothes as part of their torture)." In concluding my questions, I also asked about the Hesychast Saints Zosima and Basilisk who gave my teachers a bit more of a problem in answering: "Certain parts of their story and relationship make me uncomfortable" continuing,  "I am not certain that they were not in a relationship that was (just) romantic in nature." Finally, a priest responded that: "this goes on more than we think among monks." However, they were essentially a bit stumped as one said that the "(b)ottom line is that I just don’t know." In the end though, John Boswell was discredited by one of my teachers, as he cited first Robin Darling Young in "First Things, Gay marriage: Reimagining Church History" and then Brent D. Shaw in "A groom of One's own." Both texts ripped Boswell's work for the most part. In this way, the argument thus far advanced may be seen to be counter to that of the establishment of my faith but I see that as debatable.