Sorry. It has been said that Ted Bundy had a mental disease, and for the sake of argument, maybe he did.
He's still responsible for several murders he committed, and was appropriately sentenced.
That argument doesn't wash. Bundy committed a real crime against another person. In other words, there was a real victim.
In the case of sodomy between consenting adults, there is no victim, so punishing that act is simply punishing the participants for having a disease or birth defect. Where there is no victim and an obvious sickness or defect is present, we should be trying to cure the problem, not punish people for having that particular sickness.
If over 3000 years of prohibition don't indicate some sort of 'victim' problem to you, you are drinking the KoolAid that O'Connor promotes: "recent evolution in societal values..."
I do not advocate executions for sodomy, although there were such in Colonial times. I do not advocate umpty years of jail-time for sodomy (that would mean that most jailbirds would be there forever, wouldn't it?)
But to simply ascribe it to "illness" and say "there's no [apparent] victim--are the johns of whores "ill?" There's no "victim" there, either--except for the people who have to live in the neighborhood where these crimes occur...along with all the OTHER criminal activity that seems to follow.