It's a reboot. It's a reboot. It's a reboot. It doesn't really effect what gene Roddenberry created all those years ago by making changes if you think those changes will improve the character and the movie.
For me it's very similar to the decision to change Starbuck into a women on Battlestar Galactica. It was a very male heavy cast so they made a change that a lot of people didn't like but Starbuck is like .. one of the best things about that reboot.
I don't think this an appropriate analogy. BSG was a clear and decisive reboot. The JJverse is intrinsically linked to the Prime timeline.
But it begs the question of why essential character traits that define Kirk (his libidinous virility), Spock (conflicted, dispassionate haughtiness), McCoy (cantankerous humanism) are preserved in the JJverse.
On one hand, it gets to the headache-inducing crush of how the JJ universe relates to the Prime universe. Like - what are those rules, beyond the explicit cinematic meta-rationale, that JJ and his writers take such obvious pleasure in deconstructing.
But at a deeper level, it demands we take a position on what makes someone gay. Genetics? Environment? Some synergistic confluence of both?
I mean - enough of Prime Sulu is left in John Cho, that he still took up fencing
. What are the odds of that?
So if you believe the biologic rationalizations for homosexual orientation, or even if you don't - why shouldn't JJ-Sulu's orientation reflect on Prime's?
I wish he'd just smiled and said "That's nice" so it didn't take a bit of the gloss away from the first openly-gay Star Trek character.
I'd like to think George has done enough IRL advocacy work that should plenty enough to trump our silly little make-pretend fictional universe.
FWIW, Simon Pegg's posted an articulate, reasoned response to George over at The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jul/08/simon-pegg-defends-gay-sulu-after-george-takei-criticism