“Your counter arguments using a different source tend to take the discussion into debate territory where it becomes dueling authority sources and there can be no resolution.”
I am quoting from General Military Law of the United States, which seems perfectly relevant. The difference is not merely one of sources, it is a difference of terms. You quote a codified definition of “sodomy” and then make up from it your own definition of “homosexual.” I don’t disagree with your definition of “sodomy.” I disagree with your definition of “homosexual.” Thus, I quoted from the most relevant source that codifies a definition of “homosexual.” That definition is different from the one which you have manufactured.
Clearly, the terms “sodomy” and “homosexual” do not have the same meaning. The first is an act, and the second is an adjective or an individual. Indeed, the military definition of “sodomy” can be applied to a heterosexual context.
Sorry I haven’t had time to get to your other post, but briefly, I agree that one can’t know someone else’s sexual orientation (yet) just by looking at the person. However, I would also note that one cannot know someone’s sexual orientation by knowing with whom that person has sex. There are heterosexual individuals who have sex with others of the same sex due to environmental pressure (in prisons, ships, and pornography), and there are homosexual people who never have sex at all. The best predictor of orientation is what someone says about their orientation. It is possible for an individual difference variable to exist even if it is not directly observable (e.g. extroversion).