Doesn't matter how many times you say it, sweetie; it doesn't make it true. You can find lots of other verses and things in the Old Testament to rail against against The Scary Queers with, but this isn't one of them. Outside of your fantasy land, it's pretty clear Sodom and Gomorrah was about hospitality and overindulgence in material wealth and the physical pleasures derived therefrom and extending "physical pleasure" in this context to include purely sexual pleasure is a pretty huge stretch. Even the KJV gets this right. Mostly.
Your old standby Leviticus is also somewhat suspect, too, and far from as clear as you lot and the KJV make it out to be. In fact, it's more open to interpretation than many other Bible verses thanks to the use of ambiguous words in Biblical Hebrew (particularly toevah) in an ambiguous context (forbidden sexual relations among family members and people in various social roles, for which "two men in general" is thematically and contextually too broad and seemingly at odds with the word toevah for various reasons). This is more apparent when the verse first appears in chapter 18, less so in chapter 20, where it is more (in)famously repeated almost verbatim as a sin punishable by death, sharing this "honor" alongside numerous other sexual sins from chapter 18 that are also repeated in 20 almost verbatim. You can't believe the same "man shall not lie with man..." verse has undergone an arbitrary broadening in meaning in chapter 20 for no apparent reason and be consequent unless you're seriously willing to entertain the same the idea for the others too.
All historical, linguistic, and textual context considered, a more likely accurate reading of "man shall not lie with man..." is one where it alludes to young male prostitutes soliciting in and around temples and the men (...or priests?) who buy their "services" or, even more fitting, a reading where the words in question allude to what we call pederasty, where the man is invariably portrayed as as the pitcher / top and the boy as the catcher / bottom (and thus "woman-like" in the eyes of the Israelites). Both are better fits contextually. The use of toevah here is also less seemingly "odd" with these interpretations: both things were at the time at least relatively common and well-known practices among non-Israelites but men having sex with men in general much less so.
I'm not going to help you aside from that, even though it's pretty clear I'm much more well read than you on the Bible and the nuances of translation. Looks like you're going to have sit down, actually read your Bible, and research the original Biblical Hebrew to find the correct verses to back up your queer-bashing hysterics. Though knowing you I'm sure you'd find the original Hebrew's right-to-left writing system and VSO word order unholy abominations to God and a blasphemous affront to English as Jesus spoke it.
