One of the classic rules of literature which has been observed perennially is that sex and romance are sometimes beneath the dignity of certain stories. Consider Achilles and Briseus in the Iliad. Did they actually love each other? Why didn't Homer give us more details? We may never know, but the truth is nobody actually gives a shit, because her function within the narrative is to be a vessel for a specific moral.
Going back to modern intellectual properties. The retards who make these creative decisions typically don't understand or care about this because they're ideologically motivated. For them it is acceptable to sacrifice quality, realism, or depth if it means making something more inclusive. Some of them will even go so far as to claim that any intellectual property which doesn't engage in inclusiveness skull shaping is flawed and doesn't deserve attention.
Now regarding the gays, who, inevitably, will pop out of the woodwork whenever a Chad like me claims heterosexual couplings are okay while similar homosexual relationships feel forced and disgusting. This I say to you. First of all, in a different universe where NAMBLA had better PR than the Gay Rights Activists of the 70s and 80s I'd be explaining to you why pedophilic relationships are forced and disgusting.
More importantly though, heterosexual love between two similar aged people is objectively spiritually significant in ways that your poop-pounding fetishism will never approach. We can call on the ideas of inheritance, both genetic and material. We can allude to all religions, all of whom, without exception, have theologized on the moral and spiritual significance of marriage and birth. There is the dualism of man and women. The evolution of our respective sexes, of our social norms, of our changing values.
So in conclusion, heterosexual sex will always be acceptable, while homosexual inclusion will always be controversial, vapid and pandering.
