Hey! While same-sex relations (I hesitate to use the word homosexuality simply because of its modern connotations regarding love, etc) was attested to quite often in post-Islamic literature and in the pre-Islamic period outside of Arabia, most of the literature that I've read on sexual relations pre-Islam in Arabia itself is confined to heterosexual relationships. So unfortunately, much of this answer will be pulled from one of the few articles I could find, "Neither Homophobic nor (Hetero) Sexually Pure: Contextualizing Islam’s Objections to Same-Sex Sexuality" by Aleardo Zanghellini (contained in Samar Habib's tome Islam and Homosexuality). If you're interested at all about homosexuality post-Islamic revelation, then Samar Habib herself has written quite extensively on that.

Zanghellini argues that anal sex between heterosexual men was used as a form of subordination and humilation in Pre-Islamic Arabia. Although there is little hard evidence for this being a widespread practice (for example in Pre-Islamic poetry), he justifies his argument through his interpretation of the Bedouin understanding of honor, ʿird, and their ethical code of "manliness", muruwwa. He writes that:

the general rule is that an adult man is his own protector and guardian; hence, a male who penetrates another male is, through penetration, impugning the passive partner's own ʿird. . . it can be further argued that the penetrator, although acting wrongly, is not acting dishonorably; that is, his own ʿird remains untainted, paralleling the view, discussed in this chapter, that anal sex subordinates the passive partner but not the active one.

He goes on to elaborate that, as muruwwa is largely built upon personal valor and degenerating enemy tribes, the practice of anal sex as humiliation could very well have been practiced in a manner similar to the Romans. This could explain, he says, why liwāṭ (penetrative, anal same-sex relations) was punished so much more heavily than non-penetrative same-sex relations in the later Islamic tradition. Finally, he qualifies his arguments through saying that, even if you don't believe his more circumstantial evidence, these attitudes on same-sex relations could have come from Roman or Hellenistic influences in the Near-East, spreading through trade routes.

So, it appears as if same-sex relations were not common and, if they were practiced, were likely have been used as a form of humiliation in which only the submissive partner was in a shameful situation. A similar theme exists post-Islamic Revelation, with passive and active roles being viewed differently, but that is past the scope of your original question.

I'm sorry I couldn't find much more, but I hope that this helps give at least the start to an understanding! If you have any questions, please ask and I'll try to get back to them later.