Hello,
In the 12th chapter of his "Germania", Tacitus says, that "proditores et transfugas arboribus suspendunt, ignavos et inbelles et corpore infames caeno ac palude iniecta insuper crate mergunt."
I have often encountered alt-right folks who claim that Tacitus meant that same-sex acts were deemed to "disgrace" one's body and were punished by being thrown into a bog. As far as I know, this was also the "traditional" interpretation for quite some time to make the point that the Catholic/Christian view of (male) homosexuality was based on "natural law" and something even the "Barbarians" followed.
I always found this interpretation to be absurd, though, because the Roman Empire, Tacitus belonged to, did NOT consider same-sex acts to be something that inherently/necessarily "disgraced" one's body - so why would a historian of the Roman Empire use this wording to describe same-sex acts among the Germanic people.
So, what do modern historians think about that whole topic today?
There is nothing in the Latin that specifies same-sex acts, or even sex acts at all. The other two ...erm...ailments in that passage pertain to an inability to wage war. I did a quick search and can find no other instance of the adjective īnfāmis, īnfame in a context with corpus, corporis in Latin which have anything to do with sex acts. Livy (22.22.7) uses infame corpus to describe a deserter:
ceterum transfugam sine magnae rei proditione venientem ad hostes nihil aliud quam unum vile atque infame corpus esse ratus id agebat ut quam maximum emolumentum novis sociis esset.
("having realized that a deserter coming to enemies without something of great value was nothing other than singularly worthless and infame with respect to his body, he was seeing to it that he be as great a benefit to his new allies as possible.")
Here we see this concept of infamis corpore again associated with an inability to wage war and definitely not any sort of sexual connotation.
To get technical, in both Tacitus and Livy the "body" word is expressing respect (in Tacitus, an ablative of respect, and an accusative of respect in Livy—the result is the same). In Tacitus, literally "the lazy/cowardly and those unfit for war and those notorious/infamous/disgraceful with respect to their body." With the lack of any sort of context except the Livy for this pairing, a good translator would tend to keep the interpretation close to the other two elements in this phrase. In other words, I might suggest something like "deformed" (corpore deformatus, a common Roman concept), or perhaps "reproachful" in respect to physicality—a weakling. That is how it works in the Livy passage: the deserter, when he approaches the enemy, knows that he seems worthless, without manly virtue, a weakling. Perhaps from there we could go to something approaching sexuality, like someone unable to wage war and therefore subject to violation, but it's a stretch.