My first response listed four translations using "filthiness" as opposed to Rogers' "homosexual acts." Any of these translations listed above say the same thing. Only Rogers' translation is different and therefore needs documentation to validate his translation. As I said, that documentation goes to supporting the transition from "filthiness" to "homosexual acts." The original text may not be readily available. Those books may have been translated from rare documents kept by a university or museum. I have not found the three books in another language. 

 I do not understand from where you speculate that the "translation is just avoiding directness because of social taboos. Those social taboos, as you refer to, comes from history. I am suggesting that there is a means to validate an otherwise, inferred translation or interpretation. If there is no effort to justify using "homosexual acts" then earlier translations must be used; "filthiness."  

 I began this discussion here to address the use of "homosexual acts" as misleading. Such use of "homosexual acts" begs the question because the word homosexual did not exist in the vocabulary of the Early Church. Which leads to the need to build from the original meaning to the understanding this wiki presents; "homosexual acts." There is documentation out there. Mark D. Jordan builds the invention of sodomy. From sodomy the build to "homosexual acts" becomes easier. Without the invention of sodomy there is no reference to infer "homosexual acts."