Can’t figure out how to quote individual sections so I’ll type my reply the noob way.
“Well, it is a big deal to those of us that it concerns. You’re not likely to find any media that denies the existence of straight guys, but LGBTQ characters are often completely ignored in games, or films, books, or whatever. Representation matters, because the more we’re seen in media, the more people (both straight/cis and closeted LGBTQ) realise that it’s not wrong to be different.”
I don’t think it should be ignored gay people exist, what I’m saying is that putting them in just to fill a quota is equally as stupid as putting in a hetero romance in an action movie or something just to fill a quota. I would want either a reason for them to be there, for it to add something to the world/plot or else that it’s made an equally small deal about it as it is for anyone to be straight. When you start blowing party horns the moment someone casually goes “I’m gay” you’re going too far about “MUH REPRESENTATION” in my opinion. The other end of that spectrum are the idiots who go “THIS IS GAY PROPAGANDA” the moment there is someone gay in an entire movie regardless of size or role.
I’d rather we just rest comfortably in the middle where it’s equally as fine to have characters of any orientation(/race/gender/insert) and it’s treated equally: if it adds anything, expand on it. If it doesn’t, leave it to background flavor.
“It doesn’t matter if it’s “necessary for the plot”; are straight romances necessary for any plot? (And no, having a child does not mean that the romance needs to be straight; even in the real world, surrogacy and adoption exist, and in a fantasy or sci-fi setting, far more is possible.) If the game gives the option for straight romance, then it should also give options for gay romance, too.”
Agree to disagree on the first part. If it’s not necessary or else add something of value then it shouldn’t go beyond background flavor or it just starts distracting from said plot/world. I’m not talking exclusively about gay romances or anything here, talking in general. If a space mercenary story has a character who’s the kid of a corporate CEO but acts and is treated exactly the same as anybody else for no apparent reason and doesn’t do anything to help advance the plot or character developments, why bother with that character? It’s just a unnecessary distraction from the plot that leaves you going “what was the point of X again?”
Moving on, are straight romances necessary for any plot? Yes, some plots are centered around romances and some plots use it as a motivating factor or part of a character development. Do they have to be straight? Not particularly, it very much depends on the story. Having a gay romance be center to the plot is just as fine, and in some cases it can even add an element a straight romance cannot; sometimes it’s the other way around.
The problem for me is when things are tossed into a place where it doesn’t belong or blown out of proportion. I’m gonna be equally as bothered if I see a medieval nobody peasant who’s openly gay without some justified protection from the church in an age were gays were executed as sinners and heretics as I will be if a choice of games force me into a straight romance or if it takes time away from the plot to focus on some straight side characters being lovey dovey with one another in a way that’s completely unrelated to anything. It doesn’t need to be there.
“As an aside, the so-called “Choice of Romance” isn’t really about romance at all, being far more about the politics (hence its other name, Affairs of the Court), and I certainly feel that it’s not fun to play as a gay guy.”
Still think romance is pretty central given the name, but I digress and defer to your judgement there as I haven’t actually played it. I went fully by the name to showcase a point where I would expect for such things as gay romances to not only be readily represented but also be available as a focus and be justified for it because it’d add something to the premise (and presumably the world) of such a setting.
Before I answer to the below I should clarify what I mean with this one:
I don’t mind gay people existing in fiction (or irl) as long as it doesn’t go out of its way to show me a bunch of sex scenes which doesn’t add anything whatsoever just to have it there or if it continiously hammer me over the head with “I’M GAY I’M GAY I’M GAY” because I need the constant reminder. This applies in equal measures to straight people or black people or white people or fucking I donno, Buddists, electricians you name it. The problem isn’t the orientation, in this case; the problem is when it’s unnecessairly expanded upon at a cost of everything around it. I don’t need details if it doesn’t amount to anything or worse, takes away time and effort from the relevant parts of the story.
"This is a very loaded phrase, but let me redefine it for you: every time I see a straight couple having sex, kissing, or even just holding hands, on television, in movies, in games, in books, or even in real life, I am having heterosexuality “shoved down my throat”. If I can handle that much heterosexuality, surely you can put up with a little homosexuality. 
"
Yeah, I’ve no problems seeing homosexual couplings or displays of affection anymore than heterosexual ones. I have a problem when either of those are continously showcased without reason just to show it. If, say, a horror movie has a scene where the main leads, who let’s say are a couple (you fill in the blanks of what kind; it’s equally relevant either way), bunkering down from some killer or whatever and the they, in that moment of calm, share a kiss as they tell each other they love each other that’s fine; there’s a reason for it to be there. But if you then expand upon it to add a 20 minutes sex scene that we have to sit through and then nothing happens and they just casually go back to the plot immediately afterwards, then you’re wasting time on something that doesn’t need to be seen.
If you shift the genre over to romance though? That changes the entire premise and at that point it becomes more acceptable to show such scenes because it’s actually part of the premise to some extent and thus is nolonger in the way of the plot or distracting from the premise that you’re there for.
“Did you actually read the opening post? It’s not just about being able to play as myself, it’s about being able to see myself represented in other characters, and having non-LGBTQ players still see me represented there, too. The more “normal” it is to be LGBTQ, the less normal it will be to be homophobic (or transphobic), and that’s what I’m aiming for. If all characters are straight for a straight player, then they’ll never see anything beyond what they know.”
But the way you seem to be going about it is by having a quota of “must contain at least x gay character(s)” which is where my problem comes in. I’m not saying it’s bad to include them, I’m saying don’t have them there just to be there. Make something out of it. Same for straight people; if the orientation isn’t relevant to anything around them then the fact that they’re straight shouldn’t go beyond a handwave at worst.
“I’m not saying every game should have exclusively gay and straight characters; I’ve seen more games do it wrong than right, and especially for games with a smaller cast, making all characters bisexual is generally easier all around. But if you’ve got a larger cast, then you have no reason not to add in exclusively gay (or straight) characters, as long as you treat them with the same respect you do your other characters.”
Wait, what’re you doing? Stop this agreement; we’re supposed to be arguing on the internet! Waah! Waaah!
Jokes aside, I’m in full agreement with this part. Especially the latter part.
“Anyway, I hope I’ve given you something to think about. 
”
Afraid not, our focus appear to be in different places in this argument from what I can tell, that last one aside. I’m not entirely sure if we’re misunderstanding each other or if we just disagree on the premise of whether giving more representation is needed or not rather than it being treated as everything else. 