Is this affirming the consequent?

I was recently arguing with someone about the false equivalency between homosexual and heterosexual slurs. The person claimed that because he, as a straight man would not get offended if someone tried to insult him for being straight, that must mean that the homosexual slurs are just as inconsequential. I pointed out how historical and social realities make them different but I didn't accept his condition of getting offended and sounded a bit like he was saying

1).if homosexual& heterosexual slurs were the same, then you should not get offended.
2). you did not get offended
3). therefore, homosexual& heterosexual slurs are the same

Would this be an example of affirming the consequent? Thank you

The form of affirming the consequent is:

If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

Your argument is:

1) If homosexual & heterosexual slurs were the same (P), then you should not get offended (Q).
2) You did not get offended (Q).
3) Therefore, homosexual & heterosexual slurs are the same (P).

It's a bingo! But is your formulation of his argument accurate? You said

The person claimed that because he, as a straight man would not get offended if someone tried to insult him for being straight, that must mean that the homosexual slurs are just as inconsequential.

1) "Straight insults" to a straight man are inconsequential (e.g., "You like boobies! ha ha!").
2) "Straight insults" are of the same significance as "homosexual slurs." (implied premise)
3) Therefore, homosexual slurs are also inconsequential.

This might be a more accurate formulation of what he is arguing*. As you can see, there is a major problem with premise #2 and therefore, the conclusion does not follow. This is not fallacious; just a bad (unsound) argument.

* The fact is, we should be asking the person if this is what they meant. The person could have very well mean exactly how you presented the formalized argument.