You make it sound as though we're ignoring an iron-clad theory just because it's simple. We're not. The reason "gay Chad" is so popular is that it provides potential explanations for oddities in the "Chad's having a heterosexual affair" theory.
For example, if Chad IS just cheating on Sage, why on earth didn't he just dump Sage and hook up with the new girl directly? We see in Episode 6 that he IS willing to break up with Sage, so it can't be as simple as using her for prestige or influencing her parents. The other jocks clearly don't care about it. Sage could hardly have been more upset than she ended up being.
The only explanation that fits is that Chad's side-bitch is someone he CAN'T date openly. Now it's certainly possible that he's dating an "ugly" chick like one of the feminists, and thus has to hide her to maintain his reputation with the jocks. But there's no direct evidence of that anywhere, and there's even less circumstantial evidence to support it than there is for him being gay. So why favor the less supported theory just because it's a better fit for the panties?
no theory is ironclad (otherwise they wouldn't be theories), the problem here is that in order to keep some of them alive we completely ignore the only facts that are presented to us.
mine was a general discourse, gay Chad was one of the examples. but as for the latter, everything starts from Sage finding some woman's panties. this is a fact, not a scene to be interpreted like Mel and Sara's reaction to sage and Chad's breakup. and yet it remains completely ignored, because it doesn't fit the theory. theory first.
and we're talking about a basically secondary aspect to the story, why Chad leaves Sage serves to give depth to the story, but one reason is worth the other
we can always find out that Chad's lover is a cross-dresser...
