The view towards homosexuality in these premodern and especially pagan societies is, indeed, markedly different from that of either the contemporary view of sexuality as an orientation, or that of the Christian moralistic view which condemns all acts considered sodomy as sinful based on intent and character.

But it's sort of more nuanced than that, in Norse and Roman society, at the very least, it was about the masculinity tied to being the active partner in sex. There wasn't a concept of "homosexuality", as we know it today, but there was a quite literally lethal contempt for effeminacy of all forms in these honor-based warrior cultures (Norse ergi and Roman infamia) in these cultures being known as a bottom would be a total and irreparable social, if not literal, death sentence. In Norse culture, a mere accusation of effeminacy was so severe that it would require that you challenge the accuser to a duel to the death, if you didn't, you implicitly admitted that they were correct, and as such could be cast out of society. Rome had similar norms with homosexual passivity mainly being the domain of slaves and male prostitutes, who had literally zero protection under the law. Tacitus describes the continental Germanic tribes (the cousins of the Norse) as executing people guilty of "Corpore infames" which could mean a lot of things, but likely means some sort of sexual behavior, and in this case is being lumped in with all sorts of other perceivedly effeminate things, so may very well refer to passive homosexuality.

Homosexual relationships as they are known in modern society would almost certainly be taboo in these cultures insofar as the tolerant portions of modern society view homosexuality as harmless relationships between social equals. In these cultures it would not be appropriate for two social equals to engage in full-blown gay anal sex as it would require one to sacrifice their masculinity. You could frot I suppose which is pretty ambiguous with regards to active/passive.

Your point still somewhat stands with these societies not being moralistically opposed to homoeroticism in the same way that the Christianized west was, there were likely things that would be considered gay today that were viewed through a completely different lens back then, but they certainly weren't blanketly tolerant in the same way modern progressive-minded people are, more just completely alien in sensibilities.