I’m curious if you have any academic research to back up your claim? The Romans I remembered learning about during Uni had little qualm with homosexuality.
But giving you the benefit of the doubt, I’d like to present an alternate view. You’ve stated that the Romans had a negative term for those men who permitted others to enter them. It’s very possible that the Romans were only disgusted by the male in the receiving end of a sexual act from another male. In modern society, men who have qualms with homosexuality see it as “more gay” to be the man allowing penetration, while the man doing the penetrating could be pretending he’s penetrating a woman, and therefore it’s somehow “less gay”. Perhaps the Romans saw things the same way?
If that’s the case, it would only give more credence to the idea that the guards would have gang raped Jesus. In that scenario, they are the “big manly men” forcing The Son of God to partake in the most deeming of acts.