None of this remotely cramps my style -- but about "ALL that violated the Torah's sexual commands", I've heard that vaginal-entry-only is a Torah command. Is that right? I believe it was that "sodomy" had varying breadths of definition back then, sometimes even including oral sex between a man and his wife.
Jewish tradition, if I am not mistaken, is that emission must be done in the birth canal. These kind of things come from the Talmud and other writings-- writings written by Jewish legal scholars who have a wide variety of often contradictory opinions on the Old Testament.
The Old Testament doesn't say anything, that I know of, forbidden any sex act between married couples. Both Old and New Testaments teach to love your neighbor as you love yourself. The New Testament teaches husbands to love their wives like their own bodies.
The broader issue: Should Acts 15 be taken today by the Christian Church to be advocating Torah legalism in the marriage bed, including the broadest definitions of sodomy, i.e. oral sex?
The implication in Acts 15 is that the apostles and elders tried to keep the law, and that they were wondering whether Gentiles who came to Christ had to have a relationship with God through the covenant with Moses, and therefore be circumcised and obligated to keep the law, or not. The issue was whether they had to become Jewish prostlytes to live righteously. Non-Christian Jews debated this issue for the centuries before and after Acts 15, and arrived at the conclusion that since Gentiles had a covenant with God through Noah, they could be righteous and still be Gentiles. They came up with 7 Noachide principles for righteous Gentiles, one of which had to do with not eating live animals. All of the principles were supposed to be based on what the Torah requires of Gentiles.
I think we see similar reasoning in Acts 15. James shows that Gentiles can indeed have a relationship with God without becoming part of the nation of Israel when he shows a quote from the Old Testament (from a verse in Amos, which at the time did not have vowel pointing, and he takes prophetically to refer to 'Adam--or nations of men, rather than 'Edom--two proncunciations for the same word.) The Lord's name can be called upon nations without them being Israel-- without them being circumcised and commanded to keep the law.
The requirements for Gentiles in the passage match up with requirements in the Old Testament. God made a covenant with Noah-- so no idolatry. It was wickedness for Gentiles to worship idols in the Old Testament. Abstain from things strangled and from blood-- see the covenant with Noah, the ancestor of Jew and Gentile alike. Abstain from fornication. See Leviticus 18. Gentiles were expelled from the land for doing these things, so they are sins for Gentiles as well.
But notice oral sex isn't in the list. Neither are other practices between husband and wife. The passage forbids sexual relations between men and certain close relatives, one's neighbor's wife, other men, animals, etc. There is nothing for or against oral sex in the passage.
The Bible does not say 'sodomy' is sin. It tells about men of Sodom wanting to 'know' angels visiting lot. Sodomy in our legal definitions is named after this. The definition came to include certain sex acts even if between a married couple. The word 'sodomy' doesn't show up in the KJV, and I am not aware of a translation that uses it. Maybe 'sodomite' or something like that could be used for a catamite/malakos or maybe an arsenokoite.