Asexual makes the most sense, given he had to resort to the cloning. Homosexual, especially in 21st century context makes no sense. Fitting the whole Imperial and aristocratic nobility motif fits with a more historical method where marriage is part of politics, alliance, bloodline propagation, etc. Who one has romantic attachment to is secondly, if not tertiary to such concerns as duty. Pleasure even further down.
There are plenty of examples in history where both men and women avoided attachments and instead concentrated on their careers, including any number of religious leaders. You are correct however in that nobles more than others are compelled by custom to partner and produce offspring. Resorting to cloning would perhaps represent an alternative means of doing so.
There is also the question of whether homosexuality or bisexuality will even be a "thing" thousands of years from now, given that those things are in part genetic, and it is unlikely that future scientists will be able to avoid tinkering in order to perfect humanity, not just make us better at adapting to the multitude of possible environments that exist in the Universe. Of course that also calls into question whether or not sexual orientations that deviate from the norm are in fact "defects" that must be corrected. I will leave those sorts of judgments for future generations.
I think that ultimately the correct answer to "he is or isn't he?" is no answer--leave it open. Just leaving it open was a significant step in bringing the game culturally forward. If Marc Miller doesn't think so...well I'm not going to have that argument with him.
There are plenty of examples in history where both men and women avoided attachments and instead concentrated on their careers, including any number of religious leaders. You are correct however in that nobles more than others are compelled by custom to partner and produce offspring. Resorting to cloning would perhaps represent an alternative means of doing so.
There is also the question of whether homosexuality or bisexuality will even be a "thing" thousands of years from now, given that those things are in part genetic, and it is unlikely that future scientists will be able to avoid tinkering in order to perfect humanity, not just make us better at adapting to the multitude of possible environments that exist in the Universe. Of course that also calls into question whether or not sexual orientations that deviate from the norm are in fact "defects" that must be corrected. I will leave those sorts of judgments for future generations.
I think that ultimately the correct answer to "he is or isn't he?" is no answer--leave it open. Just leaving it open was a significant step in bringing the game culturally forward. If Marc Miller doesn't think so...well I'm not going to have that argument with him.