Yeah, I know it was a different time, I was there. Were you? Apologies if you were, but from your post, it certainly does not sound like it. This is not an example of 90's trendsetting, this was a common move for TV at the time: one showcase "very special episode" for your gay issues, and then move on.
I'm going to quote Ron Moore on this, from that amazing spilling-the-tea post-Voyager interview he gave:
“Tell me why there are no gay characters in STAR TREK,” says Ron Moore. “This is one of those uncomfortable questions I hate getting when I was working on the show, because there is no good answer for it. There is no answer for it other than people in charge don’t want gay characters in STAR TREK, period. This stuff about, ‘How would you know? Maybe there are lots of people walking through those corridors that are actually gay. What would you have us do? Show them holding hands? That would be ridiculous. Our regulars don’t hold hands,’ which its own kind of a sad commentary on the state of human relations, that they can’t even hold hands. Just think about what it would say to have a gay Starfleet captain. It would mean something in STAR TREK. It would mean something in science fiction. It would mean something in television. Why isn’t STAR TREK leading the way anymore, in the social, political front?"
That Berman interview you linked to also has a fairly illuminating quote:
"It’s something that Brannon Braga and I discussed, that Jeri Taylor and I discussed, and we never really got around to coming up with a way of just adding a gay character."
"A way of just adding a gay character." The whole frame that they needed "a way" to do it is complete nonsense, a flimsy pretense that camouflages homophobia by pretending to oppose it. The way to do it was to just have the character, in the same way that TOS just had Uhura & Sulu.
That "we can't show them holding hands!" argument is (and always was) preposterous foolishness of the highest order. Give me a break. They managed to establish all the other characters were straight while observing that rule pretty easily.
It's all more proof how vast IDIC can be. We both quoted the same article, if not same line (I read it and might have thought about it when mentioning it earlier but I might not have quoted it, I didn't scroll up) but had different perceptions of it. Dax would be the closest character to a direct LGBTQ character as such and as show. And it's sci-fi, allowing so many more facets and avenues to take than the bland obvious.Which makes her more interesting than any other character on the show, given Trill complexity.
And you raise a good point now that you're having me think about it, the other characters were having enough dialogue so we got the hint they were hetero FWIW. Didn't mean I cared any more or less than Bashir was an incel since nobody wanted to be with him* or anything else. We didn't see too much devoted to Sisko either, and he got the most with his girlfriend over the years but they didn't make dozens of entire episodes devoted to their love live. You are still right, there is no reason for the same light touch to be applied to nonheterosexuals (like what I already said about Troi and Will earlier, it's the same thing and for whatever reason they didn't fathom the possibility at the time, and - for real - you've never had a time when something was, as the phrase said, "hidden in plain sight"? It's part of human nature because real life isn't a script. Unless you believe in predestination theory but I digress.)
Personally, I just don't hinge what I like in a TV show based on who they're screwing and the show had bigger things to tell. I Ben and Lisa were implied sitting in a tree, they didn't dwell on it and had they thoughtr about it more they could have brought in someone else who had an offscreen relationship-- wait, I wrote that in the previous post so back to the point: It's okay some do but not all of us, L,G,B, T, H, Q, etc, watch TV just for who's in a token relationship and the hetero ones aren't always compelling to the audience as well. That doesn't mean, had they thought about it (going back again to the other point I already said), including a gay couple with the same level of consideration. I just don't know too many people who cling to Sisko/Lisa and not watch the show for any other reason. Let's say Miles and Julian were bi. I'm not going to watch if that's all the show is about. Indeed, Julian could be bi. Miles can be bi and married to a closed relationship with a woman. Big woop. Again, IDIC prevailing. I don't need the scripts to tell me anything, sci-fi allows us a little freedom - hence the creation of slash fic way back then for those who thought it would fun, whatever. And there's nothing wrong with platonic friendships or family-sans-having-sex-to-fight-the-notion-it-'s-only-about-sex as well. There are numerous avenues not even being brought up.)
* oh, wait, was that the narrative they're trying to sell?! Actually, no, but incel is described as a diminutive of "involuntary celibate", which is about a person who is unable to get coitus. Unlike "voluntary celibates", who choose not to seek out or turn it down. Anything beyond those base definiitons is a new facet and subdivision entirely.