Allstarecho is correct in what he says. There is no reference to male-male sexual relationships in the section: Personal relationships. Here is what it currently says, in it's entirety: 
James's personal relationships included relationships with his male courtiers and his marriage to Anne of Denmark, with whom he fathered his children. Growing up, James did not have any parents, for his father, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, was murdered and his mother, Mary I of Scotland was forced to flee when she married the suspected murderer, James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell. His grandfather was assassinated during his boyhood, and he had no siblings.[103][104]
Someone reading the article as it is now would have no idea that there is any debate about James's sexuality. The word "relationships" could mean anything, depending. I also agree with Carcharoth that the current concepts of gay and homosexual are quite different from Jacobean England's, as are concepts of male bonding, friendship, and what's acceptable in society across most cultures and time periods. However, there are reliable sources that say James had sexual relationships with at least some of his male associates. Call it what you will, but excising that from the main article section is not fair. Don't use modern terms if that is the issue. Also, the section should be in rough proportion to the other summary sections in this article, and several of them are approx 230 to 330 words long. Footnote #24 is 117 words. I would agree to move the footnote up to that section and integrate it, including the assertion that it is murky, and debated.  Even if that section is shorter, as long as it gives readers the idea that there is debate about James's sexuality. Then work on the daughter article per the suggestion. That seems fair and balanced, something that I wish to work toward. But to excise mention of anything other than platonic/family relations from the main article is not. Sorry, but footnotes don't count. People just don't generally read them. —