And we are telling you it's only as important as you want to make it. Most people don't make it that important, and focus on the more less sexual parts of their backstory. Each person is entitled to how they want to play their character and (if they are the DM) the world. I hadn't even listed the sexuality on my characters and yet I can still roleplay them as people properly. 

Not once did I mention sex in my post.

Quote from 4yulming4 >>

And we are telling you it's only as important as you want to make it. Most people don't make it that important, and focus on the more less sexual parts of their backstory. Each person is entitled to how they want to play their character and (if they are the DM) the world. I hadn't even listed the sexuality on my characters and yet I can still roleplay them as people properly. 

Not once did I mention sex in my post.

Pangurjan mentioned sex.

Your are telling me something that I didn't dispute (talking over me). I'm saying that some people didn't think that sexuality affected aspects of a character outside of sex. I'm not sure why you are so intent on arguing on behalf of people you don't know or why you are getting so aggro about this.

I never said you have to list your  character's sexuality on your character sheet, I'm not sure why you would infer that either. I don't label my character's sexuality on my sheet either yet I can have them have a partner in the game.

I was replying to things you said in your posts.

"My point is that sexuality affects different aspects of the game, not just sex." With my reply, "And we are telling you it's only as important as you want to make it."

I guess I could of worded it better, like "It only effects aspects of the game if you want it to" to make it more clearer I was responding to that particular sentence.

Before that you said "Character backstory and roleplay is hugely important in D&D", and I replied that "I hadn't even listed the sexuality on my characters and yet I can still roleplay them as people properly" in response. Basically you said that roleplay is hugely important, I told you can roleplay without needing sexuality.

"Pangurjan mentioned sex." Okay well, fair enough you were replying to a lot of people not just me.

...My post is glitched for some reason? There's a unnatural amount of spacing both above the Last edited and below the last sentence of my post. It won't let me edit my post either. Strange.

Well what I meant to add onto my post was:

Edit: Sorry if it seemed like I was trying to talk over you. I'm really not, however I can understand how it seems like I am considering the posts and I never referenced what lines I was referred to in my post. I don't quite understand how quotes and the such work.

Hey ya'll please don't be disrespectful, also my second or third reminder: THIS POST ISN'T FOR DEBATING. This post if for people to talk about their experiences, if the debating and talking over continues, I'm going to delete the thread.  

Quote from StarSpawnHarmony >>

I don't label my character's sexuality on my sheet either yet I can have them have a partner in the game.

 The vast majority of games don’t even go that far. In at least 90% of the games I have played in over the last (almost) 30 years, I can count on one hand the number of games where any PC even so much as mentioned any kind of partner, let alone actually had one. Usually, if a partner is mentioned at all they were brutality murdered as an excuse for the PC to go off on their life of adventure. (Happy, well adjusted people don’t often turn to a life as an armed mercenary for hire. 🤷‍♂️) Most players don’t seem to even want romantic relationships mentioned in their games as, for them, they feel it distracts from the adventuring. And most players pay as little attention to the backstories of their fellow PCs as they do to the pattern on the curtains in the local tavern, or even if there are curtains.

For a lot of people, when the male Blacksmith’s heterosexual wife gets kidnapped, they don’t even consciously realize that the situation involves a heterosexual relationship, or any relationship at all for that matter. Most players don’t even realize that he subject of the blacksmiths sexuality just came up, it literally does not even enter their consciousnesses. That is because they don’t see NPCs as sexual creatures. The only reason that blacksmith is married is so that his wife could get kidnapped, and the only reason either NPC exists is so the PCs can have an adventure. So, at the end, they don’t go home and have a relationship after the wife has been rescued. For most players, those NPCs walk through that tavern door and simply cease to exist. *poof*

And regardless of sexuality or gender identity, the vast majority of DMs don’t want to have to role play a PC’s romantic partner. And most players prefer to not have to watch romantic scenes between another player’s PC and an NPC(s), it just kinda bores them and detracts from the mutual story in their minds. The very idea of a player wishing to pursue a PC’s romantic desires would confuse many players. In fact, the idea of a PC having romantic desires at all would likely confuse many players.

When a lot of folks say that they don’t include sexuality in their games, what they’re really saying is that they don’t recognize sexuality in their games. They don’t notice it, and honestly many don’t want to. It’s a theme they choose to not pursue in their narratives. The fact that your PC has a romantic partner at all would be novel at many tables. I am not telling you that you are wrong for doing so by any means, it’s your D&D, play it your way. I can however point out that you are, in my experience at least, an exception for doing so rather than the rule. I just wouldn’t occur to most people.

That was a bit crude and uncalled for. People can have a conversation about how large or small a role human sexuality can play in their own campaigns, or in comparison to “average” campaigns. If you do not wish to participate, feel free not to.

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but Icepire Peak has a gay gnome king couple. I can't say much more without spoiling the Gnomengard Quest, but the module doesn't make a big deal out of it. Not sure if it's really progressive, but it's nice they're diversifying.

Sorry yall but im getting this thread deleted cause some people dont know how to not debate and respect others.

I am LGTBQ+, as I am sexual and gender fluid.  It tends to be that Dungeons and Dragons, while it is a tad racist (but they're working on that) is pretty good with LGTBQ people, due to having a gay head writer of rules - they have minor supporting transgender drow in the Waterdeep Saga and it explicitly mentions sexual attraction between characters in-game is free for the players to work on in terms of gender and all that.  All in all, D&D is very forward in this respect.  It's the players that can be the problem, but that's unavoidable - there's always some nitwit that's anti LGBTQ+ rights.

 Just thought I'd say my piece!