[Looking for Diogenes]

However, homosexuality is definitely covered in Article 125 of this code.

How so? It looks to me like homosexual kissing or mutual masturbation would not be covered by Article 125. And homosexual tendencies certainly are not. If these oficers had not performed sodomy it looks like they would not have violated this article.

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.

[Lucky Dog]

As I said in an earlier post: “Any sexual activity, except rape, is purely voluntary. Consequently, the inescapable conclusion from their own words, is that these officers violated the UCMJ by engaging in sodomy.”

Nobody is, anymore, a homosexual for tendencies (orientation) from which no actions result than someone is a rapist for lust that produces no rape. In other words, absent some homosexual behavior, no one is a “homosexual.” These officers implied through their own words that they had engaged in homosexual activities.

As to the activities you cited, to wit: “homosexual kissing or mutual masturbation,” a “kiss” is not, in, and of itself, “homosexual” nor does “mutual masturbation” involve “penetration.” Nonetheless, both of the activities, especially “mutual masturbation” may be judged to “conduct unbecoming” and still a violation of the UCMJ although not specifically Article 125.

The fact remains that these officers swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Admitting that they violated the UCMJ is a violation of that oath and thus their “false swearing” is dishonorable and that is also a violation of the UCMJ.