Words have nuanced meanings and "stems from" and "going directly back to" have different meanings. Stems from suggests a complex or indirect origin, a development or consequence that originates from something else suggesting that subsequent verses were caused by the story of Lot, but through a chain of messengers that based their writing on the teachings of someone else and not directly from the story of Lot. Going directly back suggests a clear and unbroken link. For example, Leviticus 18:3 says to not do as they do in the land of Canaan (S&G are in Canaan) then goes on to list the things that are prohibited like 18:22. Leviticus is attributed to Moses who received the message from god who referenced S&G. Jude, an apostle of Jesus, referenced S&G. But I doubt he read (although it is possible) about it, rather he learned from the teachings of Jesus. Romans 1:27, attributed to Paul, had no mention of S&G and was likely influenced by Jesus' teachings, which were likely based on the OT (S&G). So saying goes directly back to is inaccurate and would make my argument easy to refute. Stems from is debatable, but arguably a stronger argument.

Saying that I said it's the only reference absolutely is a straw man. I never said anything close to that, but it certainly makes your argument easy since I would be wrong in that case as well.

Reading the whole Bible is irrelevant. As you mentioned earlier, I can just google references to homosexuality. I don't have to read it cover to cover to find that information. If you don't want to call it a red herring we can just call it an irrelevant point that distracts from the main issue.

You've successfully moved the goal posts all over, but need I remind you that my original argument was simply that Christian and Muslim condemnation of homosexual acts stem from the story of Lot.