I wish I could quit talking about sodomy.

No, really.

Even though I haven't hesitated to discuss it in the past, I honestly thought that because sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional, it wouldn't be all that much of an issue in the future. I guess no one really stopped to think about military sodomy. (More properly, sodomy in the military.)

Bear in mind that I use the term "sodomy" as others use it, which is in the legal sense -- i.e. how statutes define it. As to the biblical definition, it's extremely problematic, because, as I have pointed out many times, what the real Sodomites did was to violently threaten to break down Lot's door in order to rape God's angels. (Aside from the question of whether angels are human, I have no problem with criminalizing such conduct, as reflected in the laws of every state.)

Most legal definitions of sodomy do not require it to be either of a heterosexual or homosexual nature, which means that legally speaking, most sodomites are heterosexual. Neither that fact, nor the Biblical account have prevented "sodomy" from being associated primarily with homosexual men. And now, via Glenn Reynolds' link to Eugene Volokh, I see that the Army still prohibits sodomy.

And, unless I am reading the statute incorrectly, sodomy is forbidden to heterosexual as well as homosexual soldiers:

Article 125—Sodomy
Text.

“(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.”

Explanation.

It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.

According to a Discovery Health site poll, nearly half of the answering public "favor" oral sex, while a majority want more!

49 percent said they favored some type of oral sex — either giving or receiving it. And finally, 61 percent said they wanted oral sex more often.

And, it goes without saying that the vast majority of them are heterosexual.

Nor should it be assumed automatically that all homosexuals in the military are practitioners of sodomy, and thus punishable under Section 125. Many homosexuals (to avoid the risk of AIDS, as well as for other reasons) engage in what is called "safe sex," much of which specifically avoids penetration, and thus, would not run afoul of the conduct proscribed above.

I am not certain how Eugene Volokh is defining "nongenital sex," although from my reading of the statute, safe sex (such as mutual masturbation) is not prohibited under Section 125.

Once again, the world of sodomy is a heterosexual world.

So why isn't it a heterosexual word?

MORE: Suppose I decided to simplify my point by means of a bumpersticker reading, simply, "SODOMY IS NOT GAY." I suspect that very few people would understand the irony. Most likely, they'd think I was a homophobic bigot.

Hmmmm......

Should I try maybe "SODOMY IS STRAIGHT." (?)