Manhood1, how did you even find this thread? It was started in 2003.
I’m guessing his routine Google search for “gay sex” turned it up.
By the way, if you guys haven’t already, check out Manhood’s links. They’re a very special kind of hilarious.
There is no such thing as gay zombie sex-there is only gay sex done by zombies. No…wait.
There is not such thing as gay zombie sex-there is only zombie sex done by gays.
Well, he can’t have used the internal search function, because “gay sex” is two three-letter words and thus it’s an invalid search term.
I see what you did there. 
They are very special links indeed. Always a pleasure to find decisive, firm posts backed up by good, hard science. Yup.
Always a pleasure to have well-written sources. I believe special would be a gross overstatement.
It’s not like he’s coming back. People that deep in denial of their own sexuality never do.
That’s the guy who got up a Wikipedia editor’s account and massively spammed his theories all over the articles on gender and sexuality, until he drove the other editors crazy. They bent over backwards to be nice to him while they struggled against him to repair the damage he was bent on doing. I so much wanted to tell him there just what I thought of him, but withheld my opinions to maintain the collegial atmosphere of Wikipedia. Here, though, I feel freer from those constraints.
Dude, we get it, already. You’re a bloke who fancies blokes. The word for that is, quite simply, gay. It’s a perfectly good word. For whatever reason, you feel your manhood is threatened by the designation of “gay,” so you redefine gay to exclude you and protect your precious, and apparently fragile, manhood. It looks like you’ve got ethnic feelings in the mix too, making a perfect hot mess of seething issues.
You have the right to work through your issues around your own sexuality as works best for you. It doesn’t, however, give you any justification for making your idiosyncratic interpretations of your troubled soul the criterion for the validity of sexuality and gender studies. When you’re in a sphere of intellectual discourse for the general public, like Wikipedia (and also this message board community), the expectation of everyone is that they be able to back up their claims with demonstrably solid and reliable sources. Failing that, your theories have no hope of being taken as anything other than one person’s idiosyncratic beliefs, with no proven bearing on the understanding of those fields of study.
You’re a gay man, according to the commonly accepted and understood sense of that term in the English language. Deal with it. I guarantee that here in this community we will think no less of your masculinity for admitting to being gay. Here we’re well aware of the difference between who you want to ball and your gender identity or expression. Your manhood is safe with us. Our estimation of your intellect and your attitude, however, are liable to a lot of damage if you keep on in that way.
Other thing, Manhood, which really bothers me: Your theory has no place at all for transsexual people. All you can think of for us is to lump us into your purported “third gender.” Well, that is nothing but pernicious bullshit. And damned insulting too. Anybody tries to tell me I’m not a woman, I’ll get mighty pissed off.
I have been asking people for decades what kind of sex can two same-sex people have that two opposite-sex people can’t. So far, nobody has come up with an answer,
^^
Scissor-sister’ing.
What do I win?
Who crowned you Merriam-Webster? There is such a thing as gay sex because that’s what I choose to call it when two gay people have sex. There is also black sex because that’s what I call it when two black people have sex. There is also shameful sex because that’s what I call it when I have sex.
They’re my adjectives, I’ll use them as I please.
They aren’t just your adjectives: some others here want to use them too, whether you please or not.
Gaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyssss
The western society runs on “might is right” – only its done in a very sophisticated way.
And, the so-called ‘gays’ have been given the control (might) over the human attribute of men’s need for men on a platter by a deeply manipulative society with an inhuman hostility towards sexuality between men. This is part of disempowering man’s need for men, so that men may be made ‘heterosexual.’
So, I’m not surprised that on a gay forum, all kinds of sexual freaks that thrive on the (stolen) identity of ‘men who have sex with men’ – when they’re individuals who lack social manhood, and are for all practical purposes seen as ‘third genders’ and not men, in their own society. Even though, at the outset, the western society doesn’t make any distinction between ‘men’ and 'males who are merely born with male genitals but have inadequate male gender orientation."
It’s the same process at Wikipedia, another western forum, where the LGBT community has been given control over anything that has to do with intimacy between men, and they make sure that they don’t give space to anything that strikes at the base of the ‘gay’ theory.
It’s not surprising at all, that ‘gays’ hate any attempt to question the western concept of ‘homosexuality’ and ‘sexual orientation.’
‘Gay’ is a theory, now?
Manhood1, I’ll go gay for you. Wanna give it a try?
If two zombies are doing it but balls don’t touch is it gay necrophilia?