Yes, but that's almost a separate issue. Water vapor is a limited feedback: if you double CO2 concentration, the additional water vapor will increase temperatures further, but only enough to induce a fraction of the original amount of increased water vapor to be sucked into the atmosphere. If this weren't the case, small deviations in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would cause even greater deviations, leading to runaway global warming until other, negative feedbacks grow large enough to counteract it; in other words, we must be in a stable equilibrium, as an unstable equilibrium would have already collapsed into a nearby stable one.

Methane clathrate guns aren't the same: the idea there is that we've not historically explored the relevant parameter landscape (oceanic acidity + temperatures). People hypothesize that, if we're not careful, we can stumble into a saddle point where a small delta propels us away from our current equilibrium and toward one with much higher mean surface temperature.

All of this is to say that water vapor feedbacks are well established, while a methane clathrate gun is just a speculative hypothesis.