Even secular criminal law addressed sodomy (or “addresses” it, it may be unenforceable but still on the books) as behavior, not as identity or orientation. It’s defined in TN as anal or oral intercourse with a man or a woman, or any sexual relations between a human being and an animal.
That’s interesting.
Does the UCMJ still address it?
I agree with that definition.
So many folks do not have a clue as to the definition.
It’d be an interesting conversation that would seque into that word’s definition!