I, like many of you, could defend both sides of this argument.
On the one hand, if you have never been exposed to gay culture before or even the idea of being gay or anything other than heterosexual, then seeing some form of that on TV or in a movie could be your introduction to a lifestyle or even just a way of thinking that you never thought possible or even knew existed. It could pique your curiosity and you could start looking for it in other, more positive forms. I understand where Harvey is coming from with this comment. A lot of the people interviewed in that movie made comments along the lines of, "I was just dying to see some sort of reflection of myself in the movies. Any little bit that I could identify with. I was craving it and would dissect every movie to see if I could find a gay character, even just a minor one." If you are in that kind of position, then yes, any form of representation would be desired even if it was negative.
And now the counter point. It's incredibly hurtful to the GLBT culture to have negative and stereotyped representations of people in movies that receive high visibility from a large portion of the country's population. Say you are that kid (or even, adult) sitting in the movie theater and you see a poor representation of a gay man. As we saw in "Celluloid Closet", gays were often used as humorous and were never serious characters. If they were, it was because they were afflicted with their sexual orientation. It was a problem, not a lifestyle. So, you're this kid sitting in the theater and your first introduction to anything GLBT is humorous, mocking, or negative. Instead of piquing your interest, that could totally set you off in the wrong direction. It could make you start viewing anything "other" as bad and something to be avoided.
Not to mention, depicting stereotypes on TV and in movies only reinforces them and justifies them in reality. Seeing it on TV only serves to validate the negative views held by society.
I can definitely see both sides of your argument, and I agree that it would be incredibly hurtful and deflating to only see gay people depicted inaccurately and in a negative light in the media. I think it's terrible how they depict gay people as being "afflicted with their sexual orientation" as you put it, and view gayness as a problem instead of a part of who you are. In my opinion it's not a problem to be fixed, but just one small part of that person's genetic makeup. People are so much more than their sexual orientation, and unfortunately that's the only thing people see sometimes when a person is GLBT. They oftentimes have certain expectations of that person, and form their entire opinion about them solely based on the fact that they're gay. It's up to the GLBT to counter these stereotypes about them and to let people know there's much more to them than their sexual preference.
I like that you raise a point about both sides of the issue. It's difficult to say that one form of representation is better than the other, and I think that at the end of the day, the complexity of this issue is why its so important for people to critically examine how we interact with the images presented to us through the media. In that sense, I think it's important that stereotypical behavior presented in films or on television should be understood and critiqued, but not necessarily outlawed. When one takes a critical eye to these images, I think it becomes easier to not see the "other" that is presented as bad or evil. But I think you covered the duality of this issue really well.