Okay, but...
if we assume there's subtext, but not to code a relationship, what exactly is there to find in the subtext then?
Of course there are all those wonderful little hints to ACD canon but...the longer I think about it the less meaning I can think of concerning the meaning of the subtext.

I think Sherlock was moved, too.
 

I think this is often true, and in fact sometimes what's there in the subtext and so on is actually the intended reading (rather than an alternative one).   And the writer does seem to have a very broad definition of queer, from what I can find out. 

I think it's maybe slightly different with Sherlock, in that we're talking about whether the two of them are going to openly get together or not.  If they did, there would be no question of there being anything other than a "queer reading". 

From time to time I love the good old "will they, won't they", as long as it is done in a good way with a sparkling chemistry between the actors.
Funny how differently we all view the show. For me there is not one single scene where I get the feeling that Mary is the love of John's life. Their chemistry is so boring.
Anyway, thanks for the link, nakahara.

Here's an interesting post on Moffat's stated views on Sherlock's sexuality and how that might conflict with canon: http://sylviatietjens.co.vu/post/71699667952/lisagemeni-wsswatson

To be honest, I haven't looked into the original ACD characters' sexuality too much (I was never the big fan that some people are, and my vision of Sherlock came from the Rathbone films rather than directly from the stories) and while I don't think what the writer here says is conclusive, it's obvious that if ACD did want to write gay characters, he'd have to do it pretty much the way he wrote Holmes and Watson!  In a time when male friendship was celebrated, it was a way to show love between men while allowing people to make theiir own assumptions.

I'm digressing, but my point was really that whatever the writer thinks of Moffat's interpretation of the canon, his comments do tell us what his interpretation is.   And they're all consistent, or as consistent as you'd expect from somebody being endlessly interviewed over many years (i.e. views and approaches and what he might want to reveal changes slightly over the years, but the gist of it is the same), and aligns with what Moffat shows us in the series.  For instance, Moffat talking about Sherlock fancying Irene - that's what he saw when he read the story, whether he was right or wrong, but it explains what we see in ASIB (somebody who has managed to repress that side of their nature having it unexpectedly come up and throw them off balance).   And it fits with what they say in the greenhouse scene in TAB (Sherlock claims that he keeps a memento because she was a formidable opponent, John points out that she's very attractive). 

I don't think we're told anything outright about his sexual orientation, and maybe it doesn't matter at all, except that, as in the article, Steven said that he wouldn't be likely to live with a man if he was attracted to men.  (Unlike the writer, I don't think this means that Steven Moffat was saying that all gay men are attracted to all men - simply that Sherlock, who avoids and represses his sexuality rather than being genuinely asexual, would not put himself in the way of frustration like that). 

Anyway, I won't go through it all - just thought it was interesting how well what Steven Moffat says outside of the show actually fits with what's in it, and how it gives an insight into his feelings about the characters. 

I don't think he regrets it... I think he just kind of accepts that's how it it, if he wants to be unburdened and keep his rationailty.
He certainly loves certain people...but again he just kind of expects them to be there at his beck and call.
Though I do think John is the only one who he doesn't ever get fed up of.
Well, possibly Irene too, but she wasn't really around long enough and actually he does tell her to 'get out of his head' when he's trying to work. I don't think he'd ever say that to John.
John is the only one who is always in tune with him, well except at Xmas and if he's after skirt!
These things irritate Sherlock but again, he just accepts his goldfish is human and needs food and sex- things which he can't supply him with. Well, he can buy him dinner!

See I just didn't take it as that, I thought he was exploring how others see him...but I do see a childhood trauma at losing Redbeard and therefore a fear of getting involved only to be heart broken.

Is it not a follow up to SIB's: 'do you think there's anything wrong with us, Mycroft?' line?  Sorry if that's not the exact quote...but you know what I mean.

Yes, and I'd think that probably about 50% or thereabouts of children experience the loss of a pet in childhood (and of course many experience other bereavements - parents, siblings, etc.).    It's not something exceptional, so it's odd that Sherlock has such an exceptional response to it.  Either they're showing that he's hyperemotional/hypersensitive (possibly - all the more reason to keep his feelings tamped down?), or "Redbeard" isn't what it seems ... and I suppose the mentions in TAB suggest that we're going to hear more about it.

(I think there's also still an element of really believing that he functions better without that sort of distraction, and trying to place himself above it.  I think the words he uses suggest that ("disadvantage", "losing side", etc.) and in ASIB he does actually find that his judgment is affected.  It seems he would like people to believe that he just isn't interested in that side of things - whereas in reality, he has suppressed it). 

I would add: and that he recognises that John and Mary are genuinely in love.