There's every evidence that the texts were interpreted differently. Ancients couldn't be tolerant of something they didn't know existed. For them, homosexuality didn't exist. The only thing that existed was the act, which they were against, for several cultural reasons. First, in the ancient Judaic reasoning, one didn't "waste" one's "seed." Homosexual acts were a waste of seed. Second, there was the whole sexually-embodied shame/honor thing. For a man to "take it like a woman" was to bring female shame into the male honor world.
I am not sure we actually know what the basis for the prohibition is, because it is certainly not clear that wasting semen was regarded as a major violation. There are some early rabbinic interpretations to that effect from what I understand, but that is thousands of years after the account, and seemingly inconsistent with other descriptions in the Tanakh.
The other problem is that the prohibition on homosexuality also appears to apply to the active partner. But there's no real shame in that in the surrounding environs.
A possible clue is in the unique idiomatic nature of the prohibition. It is quite possible that the prohibition was intended to apply to relations between Israelites only, and to circumscribe one particular act associated with loss of status. It is possible that the prohibition was intended to apply to people only with certain ritual roles. Many things are possible. We just don't know.
But we do know what the tradition is at the doctrinal level, and that it is uniformly negative until the modern era. I disagree with Boswell's hopeful interpretations as signaling anything other than possible practical tolerance as opposed to doctrinal tolerance. There is also evidence that Jewish zealots had sex with each other during the various violent rebellions against Rome, if Josephus is to be believed. Now since Josephus was a traitor and hated Zealots, maybe he should be taken with a grain of salt, but there could be an element of truth there, somewhat similar to what we see in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and other intensely homophobic societies that nevertheless institutionalize homosexuality at a de facto but not de jure level.
All of which signifies nothing to me. These people were savages that believed leprosy was caused by demons. We take them seriously at our own peril.