Were same sex relations to be a huge issue Jesus would surely have commented on it wouldn’t He? Since He did not, He must not have taught or thought that there was anything amiss with it then.
My reflex rebuttal to this would be, “You know Jesus never said one word about rape. Could we then say Jesus' silence on rape is equivalent to His being fine with it?”. The problematic nature of that reasoning process is self evident. Using that logic, any act no matter how heinous could be justified on the basis that Christ never commented about it.
One popular counter argument can be found in Matthew 15, where Jesus says,
“For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies” (Matthew 15:19)
The categories of sins Jesus referred to in the aforementioned passage are in broad terms, so “fornications” would have been understood by Jesus’ listeners to cover all forms of sexual activity outside marriage between a man and a woman (including incest, rape, same sex relations), “thefts” would have been understood to include breaking and entering, burglary and housebreaking, armed robbery and other related crimes. Note that the context of Jesus' statement was that those acts defiles those who commit them and if this is the case then it is safe to say He definitely did not endorse same sex relations.
Without prejudice to the previous point, it is submitted that there is a more apt response to the “Jesus never said anything about it" argument.
Remember Jesus' ministry was in the Jewish community. Jesus as well as the Jews were under the law of Moses. Paul confirms as much in the 4th chapter and 4th verse or Galatians. Christ consistently made reference to the Mosaic law when confronted with tough questions. For example,
“He (Christ) said to him (the lawyer), “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?” (Luke 10th chapter 26th verse, words in brackets mine for context).
In another passage,
“ Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” (John 10th chapter 34th verse)
This is the same Christ who said,
“Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I came not to destroy but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17)
The same Mosaic law Jesus affirmed said,
“ Thou shalt not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18th chapter, 24th verse)
Sadducees and Pharisees usually brought controversial matters to Jesus. Situations where the Mosaic law was hotly disputed by the experts, scholars and scribes. Topics like divorce (I.e. could a man put away his wife only in rare instances or could he do so for reasons as trivial as her brewing his tea improperly. They tabled the controversy before Christ in the 19th chapter of Matthew from the 3rd verse to the 9th verse.
Another example was when the Sadducees brought up what they felt was a tough dilemma Jesus in Matthew 22:23–33. They were trying to disprove the resurrection but the context of their objection was based on what Moses said in the law.
In light of all that has been stated above, the reason Jesus never addressed same sex relations is due to the fact there was no cause to. The Mosaic law on same sex relations was not ambiguous. Same sex relations were understood as an abomination in a community of Jews as per Moses' law.
The law unequivocally forbade it so just never came up as a talking point when Christ was on the earth.
To enquire why Christ made no comments on same sex relations is tantamount to exploring why He never made pronouncements on internet dating or the COVID 19 vaccine. Those issues were not relevant in His time.
But when we consider Christ’s emphasis on humility and His unreserved critiques of the pompous Pharisees, it is doubtful He would have been a fan of a movement based on pride, but that is besides the point.
In conclusion, the Jewish law aptly covered the matter of same sex relations and there was nothing new to be said on it. It would therefore appear that the logical and canonical deduction from Christ’s silence is that He without qualification affirmed the already existing position under the Mosaic law.