No, they weren't, inasmuch as the concept of homosexuality as we understand it now (same sex people having relations) didn't exist.

Roman society was a very patriarchal society and sex was conceptualized in terms of dominance and submission. Thus, in the example of two males having sex, social blame would fall in the passive part for being submissive, not for having had sex with another male.

With that in mind I can answer you again: some Eunuchs were certainly accused of sodomy, but it wasn't for homophobic reasons of from a conceptual frame in wich that act situated that individual in a diferential social group ut because it was considered unmanly. Eunuch's "feminity" was an easy source of scorn, and although Eunuch gender perception is a very interesting field in itself, we know that:

If an Eunuch was ever accused of sexual non normative activities /A it wouldn't be about sexual orientation but about weakness in case of a passive role and B/ the accusation would be framed in a similar way it would be if thrown to a male, or it would be considered another brick in a wall of femeninity/weakness.

So yes, physical reality dictates that Eunuchs were more easily associated with passive roles in sexual activities, but it wasn't done in a "Hetero vs Homo" conceptualization us we do, but in a "Male dominant / female submissive" frame.

Excuse the lack of style, I'm using my phone. I'm not a big expert on the reality of Eunuchs in general, but if you are interested in knowing more I can point you to some more information.