Does moral emotivism imply moral normativity is irrational and arbitrary?

Moral emotivism states that moral statements are an expression of emotions and are not grounded in facts. It follows that whatever or for whatever reason an individual feels something is right or wrong, is valid and final. Feelings can change, even if the arguments have not.

In other words, by being a moral emotivist, it would be coherent to conclude further discussion about ethics would be meaningless on the one hand and irrational and arbitrary on the other (you want others to feel like you feel just for it's own sake).

Suppose we have a society in which half of the population thinks homosexuality is wrong (they feel negative emotions associated with it), the other thinks it's good (positive emotions). Suppose these emotions are biologically hard coded and that every day, this hardcoding switches from positive feelings to negative and vice versa. Everyday there is a debate about whether to allow or prohibit homosexuality. There are arguments for both sides with plenty of empirical proof and these do not change.

Do you agree that a moral emotivist should the conclude that any discussion about the matter is irrational and arbitrary ?