I'm reading Adrian Goldsworthy's How Rome Fell and he just casually drops the above claim quite lightly with a statement like "in contrast to what people now claim".
He was speaking on the emperor Elagabulus, and the rumors that swirled around him about his antics (clearly not well received)
Spending some time here it does seem to be a popular view that Roman concern over homosexuality was mainly over who was perceived to have power or who was penetrating, but Goldsworthy maintains that,while it was not particularly worth staring a riot for with an emperor with temperance, it was still always wrong.
Are both these views true? Did it apply for a particular segment of the population or all of them?
Professor Thomas K. Hubbard's Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents is probably the most extensive and illusive compendium on the subject. He covers a lot of temporal territory but there is plenty of material from the last few centuries BCE through the Roman Empire era. Going by his extensive introductory comments, there was as little consensus then as there is now.
I don't have my copy handy so I can't go into details here, sorry.
I highly recommend the book - it is written for an undergraduate audience but, well, let Hubbard say it: "The footnotes are geared to a general undergraduate audience that has little previous knowledge of classical civilization and may need explanation of basic cultural artifacts or historical references. The notes also include points of interpretation, which should interest both the general and the more knowledgeable reader."
ETA: I'm at the wedding of two fine gentleman right now so I can't follow up for a while. Knowing these guys, the reception is going to be KILLAH so probably tomorrow will be my earliest opportunity. :D