wouldnt biromantic=gay???

It all depends on your perspective. From the way you've described yourself, you sound to me like a biromantic homosexual. They are by no means mutually exclusive categories; far from it, in fact. They describe different axes, different elements of your attractions. They're like your race and your nationality; while they can be related, in the end, they describe different things about you, and they don't have to match.

But again, it depends on your perspective: specifically, it depends on whether you define your sexuality by the attractions you have or by the attractions you act on, by what you feel or what you do. Most people I know define it by the first one, but defining it by the second one isn't unheard of. If you define it in the first way, you're a biromantic homosexual (if that label works for you). If you define it the second way, you would probably be regular-ol' gay.

My take on the matter is that there's nothing wrong with saying that you feel certain kinds of attractions (say, emotional attraction to females) but you choose not to act on them. That doesn't invalidate them or make them somehow nonexistent. I love lemonade that has been made with five times the amount of sugar recommended by the recipe, but I don't drink it for the sake of my health. Does that means I don't like how it tastes? Of course not.

If that were true, asexuals would never date and form relationships, but they do. Of course, everyone is different, and just as some people don't need sex to feel satisfied in a relationship, some do. There's nothing wrong with belonging to either camp, and if you belong to the second one, again, from my perspective, it just means that you have emotional attractions to females that you don't act on because you know you can't be sexually attracted to them.

 

That would be biromantic homosexual, yes. There are relationships out there that are only romantic, not sexual, but that's mostly in the asexual community.
I'm not sure what label one usually goes by with this orientation, gay or bi. If you aren't interested in having a relationship with a girl then I would say it's probably safe to just say gay since that's closest.

Labels can be annoying, because in the end you like who you like.
Yet we use them anyway, and really that's okay too, they help us describe how we feel to each other. Just like any other word. But we don't have to glue ourselves to them.

 

This is totally the exact same situation as me. That's probably my biggest problem - I think I can fall in love with a girl but like you said, it wouldn't be much of a relationship if we couldn't have sex (which sounds bad but is true).
It's hard to think about. I personally identify as gay because I don't think I could have a healthy relationship with a girl. I wrote a thread about this called Biromantic Homosexual a while back (but I don't know how to link...) and most people said I'm just confused.
I hope it works out for you. If you ever want to talk, feel free to message me. I'm in the same position as you.

 

I have felt similarly but really what you describe is just being gay/homosexual to me. I mean some of the straightest guys in the world have formed lifelong platonic friendships with another guy but they don't call themselves bi-romantic. Without the sexual attraction from a romance you are really just left with an extremely close friendship.

I also think the term bi-romantic fails for another reason. Since any lasting romance with the opposite sex is probably going to be impossible because you are always going to know what you really want and no matter how you try and force it that is going to eat away at any relationship.

I mean unless you are talking about a situation in which there is no other guys left on earth and women become the only option for you then the term seems kind of meaningless to me.

That being said it is your life and I think each person can identify as whatever they prefer.