I don't think any Gay Kingdom should be called the Gay Kingdom, unless every Gay Man and Lesbian Woman votes YES for that, because no Kingdom/Republic has the right to steal the voice of the people. I think a Gay Majority Kingdom should be all inclusive of all people that wish to live and support an "Equality For All" idea.
Well, a state can't make its right of existence a subject of consent by general public, even if this general public is a gay public. The outmost of courtesy is to grant those opponents the right to refuse the citizenship of that Gay State. There is also nothing to be said against more than one gay states - just as there existed 2 german states (along with Austria and Switzerland), two or five gay states could peacefully co-exist with a gay-friendly countries like Netherlands or even Kingdom of Fridet, shall it be established on the world's map.

As long as no organization/state lays the all-consumptious claim over the entire gay population, I see no source of conflict.
1) Even if every gay man & woman moved to a new Republic/Kingdom, what would happen to those that are born in Russia or America and must live there for 16-18 years before even the chance of moving? How would this continue to scar homosexuals abroad, perhaps even to not admitting that they are Gay or Lesbian because there is no Older Generation to help them along (as there was when I came out). And even if they did come out and move, how would this drain the economy of the Republic/Kingdom to continue to take in millions of immigrants each year?
There is no need that every gay man and woman moves to the Gay State - it is of course, not capable to solve
all problems of gay community. It will solve, however, many serious problems which can't be solved by any other approach: for example, the question of gays born in extremely hostile countries like Iran, Zimbabwe etc. Certainly, we will hardly be able to bring them home untill they are 16 or 18 and can leave their countries "as tourists". But what is the alternative? Leave them there for the rest of their lives? Certainly not - in the meanwhile they would at least have some light at the end of the tunnel. As for the missing gay generation, at such places like Russia or Iran the older generation is not visible anyway - we would not "steal" the role models from the gay youth there, on contrary - knowing of our state, they will have many opportunities to become informed of many bright, honorable individuals as example of what they can be. Having much better ressources for propaganda via ouwn state SAT television we would break through any attempted informational blockade from homophobes. Just think of all those gay educational and cultural programs we could offer to those poor isolated fellows if we had the ressources of a state.
To the economy: our human ressources would be renewed by immigration, requiring 2-3 years of integrative courses for newcomers - this is not overly much in comparison with those 16-25 years of nurturing and educating kids in any other society. Beyound this, why shall the gay state face some particular economic difficulties? Certainly, many poor immigrants would not allow the same social standards as in Western Europe, but aren't many countries (the majority of this world, actually) scratching at the edge of poverty? I think it would be not a particlarly shameful stand if we could achieve some medium level of prosperity - this is more than most other states can claim for themeselves.
2) How would the Republic/Kingdom keep alive, providing that Gays & Lesbian relationship do not have children unless they are bisexual, adopt children, or have artificial insemination? What would happen when these Children are str8? Would reverse discrimination happen? Would the Gay Republic/Kingdom set a good example to the rest of the world?
Well, by immigration - thanks to nature, our folks are constantly born at a constant rate ewerywhere. If we assume that gay people migrate to the gay state in the age of 20 - 40 (average: 30), we can calculate the medium life span in the gay state as approximately 40 years. This would suggest that our yearly regeneration rate must be of 2.5%. In other words, a city-state of 1 million people would require 25.000 newcomers each year - this isn't overly much. This process would be much the same like the usual work force migration to any larger european or northamerican city - nothing dramatic.
The straight children might indeed constitute a "problem" with respect on gay structure of the population. We have discussed this issue in
here and
here extensely but came to no satisfying solution, as the opinions were divided. My personal suggestion is that only adult homosexual individuals can become citizens of the Gay State, while children of citizens would be allowed the permanent residency. If they are are straight, they will be in need to seek citizenship from countries where their parents came from to the Gay State. If straight children would choose to stay, they by no means shall be forced out - but they would not be granted the political rights connected to the citizenship. Because of the general migration in the modern world and the possibilities to marry outside of the Gay State, this solution appears to me as connected to a minimum of evils.
3) What message would the Gay Republic/Kingdom set to the rest of the World? Would it be a message of Equality, Love, and Peace? Would it be a message that those of us that do not move for any reason would feel like supporting or PERHAPS could the a Gay Republic/Kingdom (with no other name) send a bad message to the World and make Gay's look worse?
The message of the Gay State shall be Pride, Safety and Confidence for our own people. For the rest of the world, we can offer Mutual Respect, Cooperation and Strength - other Nations shall feel proud to count us to their friends, or likewise think twice to become our enemies. Like any other nation, we would of course pursue our own national interests, while of course offering a helping hand when needed.
Sometimes I think that while we take Israel as a good example of successfull state foundation, we by times draw to close parallels to the developement of this state to our own future developement. When you were asking about a "bad example", were you thinking of concentration camps filled with straights and living in poverty and oppression, while evil gays are shooting their ragged and hungry children for sports? This mustn't be this way. When we restrict immigration to homosexuals only, we will rather resemble any other nation-state which limits immigration to those who fit its national ideal: in their case they young professionals, in our case gays and lesbians. Beyound these restrictions, the Gay Nation shall contribute to the global peace and prosperity in coperation with other nations.
On the other hand, I agree with Feral - nation-building is probably not that much about sending messages to others, but rather about getting one's own business managed. Shall the Gay State turn into reality, the government will have enough to do with building homes and feeding the people, the foreign politics are redundant.
So you would in a sense force people not to have children, whereas there are millions of Gay & Lesbians that want children? I don't call this a step forward but rather a step backward. Life should be more about Freedoms not CONTROLING your citizens. Besides this would be a democracy no? So wouldn't the PEOPLE decide on this issue? And why does my neighbor or president have the right to tell me if I can have children or not?
Your ideas tend to be very totalitarian...
You speak out of my heart - I also have suspected K6 of being a totalitarian at various occasions.

This being said, we must not forget that the vast majority of gays live in conditions very distanf from being liberal or at least liveable. For such gays, even the emigration to a largely totalitarian
gay country would be a great personal win, even if they were forced to surrender many of their other freedoms (for property, children etc.). Please note that I do not propagate such a regime - if we can have a democratic and free society, why shall we choose the worse alternative? But I almost tend to the assumption that even the worst autocratically ruled gay state would be a wonderfull place to start - it would be up to us to make it any better.