Well there I went again and preached. Sorry about that.
Oh, no need to apologize for something you are expressely encouraged to do! Compassionate preaching is exactly what is expected here, in particular well-founded sermons are welcome and appreciated.

I shall insist, however, that disputants stay on topic - there is always the option to post a new thread, when necessary.
P.S. Wish to repost the part on Ecology as a new thread?I am under the impression that the there is the belief that gays and lesbians will not find ways to insure a steady increase of native born sons and daughters.
There are definitely those who have this view. The idea that 'native born' citizens are required for the continued existence of a nation-state is grotesquely hetero-centric and just plain false. Immigration alone can, I am confident, sustain the Gay nation.
Oh, there definitely would be ways to ensure a steady population growth of "native born" individuals even in a country run by Gays (of both genders), though these ways would be by no means "natural." The application of a syringe or IVF is most certainly a heavily technical, not "natural" way of making babies.

The huge, essential question is: what is in the interests of the Gay State, and what is not? If we were to create a better, unique novel model state for all kinds of human beings, we indeed should agree on relying on the "natural growth" of population by encouraging female residents to produce as many children as possible. Alone, since there are no ways known to make Gay babies on purpose, such a policy would eliminate the Gay constituency of the said novel state within a generation or two. This is not exactly what we are intending, right? It is entirely possible to maintain the population by means of Gay immigration only, without inflicting all the additional complications of "9:1 dilemma" of self-bred babies.
There is a biological clock that ticks in nearly all of us, I doubt that that should be ignored.
No clock ticking within me, and I am late.

The urge to pass one's DNA and one's experience are VERY separate issues. Anyone worried about his unique genes can donate sperm/eggs to suitable facilities, whereas those with a wish to educate a young person will have the opportunity to do so by educating a Gay Youth. However, shall anyone desire to give birth to a child, these persons shall of course be free to do so -- but this private enterprises shall not be a priority for the State demographics.
It may be somewhat necessary to control the influx and also to provide missionary work to the outside world with the goal of harvesting our brothers and sisters out of the world. We should never forget that a good majority of the gay world lives in poverty since a good majority lives in poverty.
This is a major issue. Though Internet is a powerfull technology for distribution of information, our brethreigns from poor and oppressive countries are largely excluded from the internet, either due to the lack of devices, or due to internet censorship. The Gay State will have to apply different tactics for information spread -- be it even through printing articles superfacially critisizing the Gay State and the "deviants", but effectively bringing the word of its existence to our people, who will know what to do. In a more wealthy countries, we will indeed have to make the folks feel there is a greate chance for them to start a new life in a much better place without loosing too many comforts.
A Gay state would not be much of a Gay state if it did grant a presumptive right of settlement to any Gay person. While I can only imagine the policies of a country that does not yet exist (and I am sure there will be fierce debates on each and every one of its policies), I would hope that the 'right of settlement' would include a right to every assistance in exercising that right.
You forgot the word "not".

Assumingly, properly it should be read:
"A Gay state would not be much of a Gay state if it did not grant a presumptive right of settlement to any Gay person."
The right for a permanent residency should be indeed one of the "natural rights" for any Gay person in such a state. The other folks (straights, bisexuals) will probably have to be subjected to regulations imposed by the overall political situation and economic realities of the Gay State. It is very probable that once the Gay Nation has attended a certain degree of wealth, it will be forced to install some regulations on non-gay would-be residents. It's not an issue of bias, but rather a simple recognition of factual constraints.
And carefully I add that we should not exclude the straights, bisexuals and those who are tolerant.
[..] but yes... there is no reason to exclude bisexuals and even straights from a Gay state.
See above -- any restrictions should be imposed solely because of
Raison d'Etat, not due to a bias. The future Gay State will probably never have to decide about whether to generally let straight and bisexual individuals in, but rather on the number of such residency permissions issued. While it certainly will be required to requlate the residency rights of foreign citizens, there is much to say in favour of accepting some of them to live among the gay majourity population.
I would assume that any Gay Nation would try to be first world in its luxury and its structure.
A curious thought -- I would have made the opposite assumption.
I would suppose that in beginning the Gay Sstate will be no place of much wealth. Where should it come from? Consider all the poor refugees coming with nothing but their health problems and in need of food, clothes and housing opportunities -- and all the infrastructure which will be needed to created first. In the early years, the rich tourists will stay away from Gay Shores, and the daily bread will be an issue of hard work for everybody who comes without much posessions. With time, the wealth will most certainly grow, thanks the gays from abroad will significantly contribute to the economics of the Gay State - as tourists or consumers of cultural goods. There are not many nations that can rely not only to the usual business relationships, but also can count on loyality from millions of foreign citizens.
Once a Gay Nation is established I assure you bigotry and hate will grow, not lessen. However it will be in the form of pushing our brothers and sisters to the nation. Immigration will be set, and as the outside societies become less tolerant and young gays are told to go to that Fag Nation (as we can be assured will be one of the more colorful titles it will receive) the pressure to immigrate will be there.
It is of course possible that in some of our "civillized western societies" a number of bigots might feel delighted by the idea to "help" Gays move to a distant island. However, such notions will be of less importance in truly civillized societies. I think that if the argumentation of assimilationists were true, and argumentation of Gay Nationalists were wrong, the emergence of a Gay State would have no impact on straight societies which allegedely turned gay-friendly for the end of time, as we are supposed to believe. Any increased homophobia would not to be attributed to the Gay State, it will be solely a sign of abolishing the hypocritical "tolerance" for Gays. Those who love us when we are weak, and hate us when we are strong, are no friends of us, they never were. In countries where Gays are regarded a fair game anyway, I doubt there is space for an increasing homophobia. If straight governments there shall turn their minds from murdering Gays towards forcing them into emigration, I would consider such developements a considerable progress.