As other people say… yeah, that would be pretty uncomfortable. Even though the purpose would be game balance, it would still give off kind of a vibe that making the characters no longer be gay would be “fixing” them, and, in addition, it would be reducing the representation of gay characters.
When it comes to characters with set sexualities, bisexuality absolutely can be a set sexuality; when it is, it’s often nice for it to be acknowledged that the character is always bi, and that that’s who they really are. (Acknowledgement can vary by character, of course… could be an ex, but some characters don’t have those… could be noticing someone the character finds cute, but some characters wouldn’t comment on that… could be someone explicitly saying “I’m bi” but some people might just not feel like talking about that or might be in a setting that doesn’t use that terminology… etc.) But, that said, it’s also nice to represent gay characters as well… and while you’re doing that, I guess it’s okay to include heterosexual people as well 
(Of course, that can quickly lead to ballooning cast sizes.)
If you do that, you’d probably see some people complain… but in all honesty, I don’t care
The thing is, it’s super-easy to find games with hetero romance. Gay romance in games is rarer, and when it does exist, the options are often fewer, sparser, less important, smaller, or inferior in any other myriad of ways. Having a game that’s tilted more towards gay options would be a matter of redressing that imbalance.
But, that said, I wouldn’t mind if you keep a couple of love interests as hetero-only. As long as it’s not too hetero-skewed, it’s all good 
[quote=“Lizzy, post:175, topic:20429”]
Do I have to remind you of the chart @ParrotWatcher?
[/quote]
Huh 
I’m pretty sure @ParrotWatcher and I have been following a chart that’s almost identical, but that says “gay guys” instead
(I think what I’d most like is to use both charts together, along with similar charts for other underrepresented groups 
)[quote=“VoiD, post:177, topic:20429, full:true”]
Yes, this was the point I was getting at. A diverse group of characters, of course, is essential to a good story. Adding a non-essential character simply for the sake of inclusiveness is harmful to the story you’re trying to tell. Basically, I think all characters deserve to be fleshed out, and adding one to the story so you can point to it later and say “There, I included X!” is not a good idea. I’m all for representation, but it should not be the sole pillar of a character’s personality. No one enjoys token characters.
[/quote]
Ah, this makes more sense than what I’d originally thought you were saying. I’d say it’s generally good to be including diversity as you’re creating the essential characters in the first place, rather than just tossing token characters in as afterthoughts, since the latter will tend to make them seem much less connected to the storyline… and it’s such a minimal effort that it’s not really much of a representation, either. It’s better if you’re thinking along the lines of “okay, I need a warrior who opposes the crown prince… ah, and the warrior’s spouse, maybe they can be lesbians” rather than “okay, I’ve written a whole bunch of important straight people, guess I’ll tack on a lesbian now!”