That's a big assumption. And how do you know how He would have addressed it? He sided with the adulteress when Scripture clearly speaks out against adultery. He didn't condemn her, he saved her from those who wanted to stone her.<quoted text>
Logical fallacy, argument from ignorance. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Jesus addressed the situations he could readily see around him. If two people had been caught in the very commission of a homosexual act and brought to Jesus. I am sure he would have addressed it.
Why didn't Jesus make a point of addressing homosexuality in person? Since God is all knowing, then He would known that this would become an issue. So, why not have it addressed clearly by Jesus so there could be no question? There are accounts of Jesus dealing with so many other issues, why not homosexuality? If it was as prevalent, and an "abomination", as Scripture makes it out to be, then how didn't Jesus come across a homosexual and address the situation personally?