Vivienne in Dragon Age Inquisition.

Player-sixual really seems like the best option in this case. The majority of characters in fiction in general are proof that you don't need to establish or discuss sixual orientation to create compelling characters, and I daresay the emotional beats of most romantic storylines wouldn't be diminished by fudging the genders around. We technically lose on opportunities like Veronica, where sixual orientation is actually important to her personal narrative, but Bethesda can do whatever they want with non-romanceable characters. Make them gay, or in the closet, or openly misogynistic, or whatever; as long as Bethesda gives everybody a fair shake. And player-sixual romances are nothing if not fair. Bethesda's actually got a good track record of treating different groups fairly, without really drawing attention to themselves over it.

Happens with Serana, in Dawnguard. I got a good laugh at the amount of perceived outrage over that - Bethesda actually gives us a character we care about, and we can't marry them. I would have done it just to get her to live in my home instead of in a keep at the edge of the map.

Maybe they could do that for some of the non-companion characters we'll meet. Complete a quest for some woman, become friends, and add a little dialog option where she gets to say "No, thank you.".

I guess that it's a matter of priorities. For my part, I've never found what passes for 'romance' in games to be compelling or interesting enough to warrant much attention. But, interesting stories require interesting characters so making all the NPCs blank slates to facilitate open romance options is a poor trade-off for my tastes.