No, no, no no.
First of all, let's get the obvious out of the way. The same word here (whoredoms) is used (Hebrew and English) in: Genesis 38:24, almost all of Ezekiel 23, and Nahum 3:4-6. The lone ambiguous counter example is 2 Kings 9:22, but that really goes to prove my point - you can't just lazily rely on a dictionary definition for an exact and exclusive sense of this word precisely because the imagery of actual prostitution is both used literally and also used as a metaphor for the unfaithfulness of Israel to God throughout the Old Testament. What matters is the sense of the text.
Secondly, the whole contour of Hosea is of God asking Hosea to do things that are types, representations of Israel's relationship to Him. So, Hosea names his children in such a way as to clearly symbolise aspects of that relationship. It is surely beyond sensical argument then that Hosea (the book) uses real/literal things as metaphors to teach about spiritual things. So, the fact that Hosea is asked to marry a prostitute would be entirely in keeping with this trend, whereas arguing Gomer was a simple idolator, with no sexual connotation, not only ignores the connotations of the words used, but, frankly, makes no sense - how could Gomer act as an idolator towards Hosea, for the purposes of metaphor, if there is no sexual imagery?
Finally this:
I don't think the text actually implies that children of whoredoms means they were literally prostitutes themselves, simply that they are tainted by the sin of 'prostitution' (it's a little clearer in Hosea 2). If I said to you 'the daughter of the king', that would imply a very different kind of relationship between the subject and the object than 'the assassin of the king', even though the grammatical construction is otherwise identical. Please don't base your arguments on a superficial understanding of 17th century English.
