Ok so if i replaced "rapist" with "person to engages in sex regardless of intent" make a difference to you? Please stop your word play and linguistic gymnastics to try and prove a point.
No it wouldn't because rape is the act. Gay is not an act. It is an orientation.
Seriously, why is this so hard? Let's try putting it this way.
A man is attracted to other men, but chooses to be with his wife who he is not attracted to but he believes in monogamy, so doesn't go having sex with other men.
A different man is in dire straits, completely broke and is facing starvation unless he sells himself to a dude. He is in no way attracted to men whatsoever.
A third guy forces himself on someone.
Guy 1 is gay, because he is only attracted to other men. This is true even if he never acts on it and has sex with his wife every night.
Guy 2 had gay sex, but isn't gay himself, because he is not attracted to men (and, again, the definition of gay isn't 'someone who has gay sex' but is 'someone who is attracted to the same gender')
Guy 3 is a rapist, because he raped someone and that's what the word rapist means.
Really dude, this isn't hard. Use a dictionary.