I'll open with the statement that I don't care one way or the other if someone is gay, straight, bi, whatever. I'm married and happen to want to stay that way, so I'm not chasing after anyone else, man or woman. It has no personal effect on me. I have an opinion, but I also have an opinion on what brand of socks I like best. I once worked and lived in a barracks with a man who I later found out was gay. It was never an issue because he was a professional and did his job well and kept his personal life to himself, as we all did. And yes, I still keep in contact with him, you can't spend two years of your life in close proximity to someone and not form some sort of friendship. Smitty and I actually got along quite well. Long story short, it doesn't matter to me what another adult does.

I think the issue isn't that they chose a gay character to wear the kilt, it's that they chose ONLY a gay character to wear the kilt, thus reinforcing the notion to some that the kilt is an item of clothing designed for men who'd rather be wearing lace and bangles. If there had been a small group wearing the kilt, no issue. If there had been only a straight character, it MAY have sent a message that the kilt is a garment designed specifically for men to the uneducated (about kilts anyway) masses.

The bottom line is that "the masses", by definition, have no knowlege, interest or stake in what anyone thinks of a kilt, other than a gag to get viewership. Same reason most fathers on the television are portrayed as bumbling fools who ride on the apron strings of their wives. They are concerned about getting a laugh and ratings, not the cumulative effect of the stereotype on young minds who watch it day in and day out.