I hate it when people use euphemisms or an uncertain idiom and this one has bugged me for years.
I make reference to Ephsians 5:3
In Ephesians Chapter 5 and verse 3, speaking on matters of sexual misconduct Paul wrote: 3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
At this point I wish to put in a request that respondents stick to linguistically based exegetics and not just opinions about social propriety, as I simply find it hard to suffer or cater to prudes.
From colonial times in North America, sexual acts forbidden to Christians in north america, have been characterized as "not to be mentioned among Christians" I question the validity of that as a useful idiom requiring Christians to be Hush-Hush and not so much as explicitly mention by name the forbidden sexual activities.
My inclination is to believe that the intent of that wording is that the forbidden sexual acts should never have occasion to be charged against any Christian because all Christians should utterly avoid those heinous sins. However as evidenced by the modified wording used in allegations about the practice of Homosexuality by Walt Whitman in the 1800's
(see at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Whitman#Sexuality The use of"that horrible sin not to be mentioned among Christians."
in the parlance of that day seems to be an equivalent tonot be mentioned
as we find in Ephesians.not be named
It seems to me that turning the phrase into the euphemism that it has become is some sort of superstitious belief just as the imperative not to so much as "speak of the devil...." Which in the fuller rendition of that euphemism/idiom/warning would be, "If you speak of the devil he is sure to appear". Hence regarding the mere mention of the devil is the same as deliberately summoning that demoniacal spirit.
So then what I am asking for is whatever exegesis or linguistic analysis (not just an unsubstantiated opinion) might be offered dispel the notion that to even pronounce the words "homosexuality" or "sex with animals" was somehow, (or should still be) considered to by magical or spiritual means promote the action among those upon whose ears the words might fall.
It seems to me that to make the words "undefined and unspoken" would be more likely to promote those acts than prevent them. In which case one might argue that hiding the words so that the acts can not be simply and clearly, denoted as "anathema to God", makes it harder to teach against the activities and concepts that they describe.