If we're going to answer this with some measure of completeness, we need to make a few assumptions about your technology;
1) Your embryos made up of male sperm are made up of TWO different males, combining a sperm cell with an X chromosome and a sperm cell with a Y chromosome from different people
2) You have a viable replacement for Breast Milk in the early stages of life
3) Both these are based on technologies that CANNOT be easily disrupted through power outages and the like; in other words, they're as close to their natural and organic counterparts as is possible.
If we hold these assumptions to be true, then your society may well be more stable than a mixed gender one, but there are some areas where there are issues, just the same.
For a start, yes, sexual attraction to each other will only occur in a small number of cases because if homosexuals are born that way, then so are heterosexuals and yes, that may result in more 'companion bot' products being sold, but that's not necessarily a bad thing as such devices may also have other benefits, like companionship. Certainly such behaviour can be programmed into devices, as the latest robot toys demonstrate, and this will only increase.
Families will still be a thing because men, regardless of much of the propaganda put out by special interest groups to the contrary, want to be good parents if they are inclined to have children in the first place. The willingness and capacity to be a good parent (in my experience on the matter) does not correlate along lines of gender. While sex is currently used in our society to emotionally bind pairs, in this society that doesn't have to be the case and we'll find other points of commonality that create close friendship bonds instead.
As such, pairs or small groups of men (the count is now irrelevant because it's not a function of sex) would probably form family units, and their DNA would probably be the contributions made to the children they raise. As such, children wouldn't necessarily be at a loss for family and community interaction at all and would grow up perfectly adjusted, especially given that all children would grow up in similar groups and therefore it wouldn't be a point of comparison between themselves in a schooling environment.
Society wouldn't become more aggressive; there's actually a case to answer that it would become less aggressive insofar as it wouldn't be focused on demonstrating prowess or aggression to attract potential mates by showing of their ability to protect from outside hostility. The homogeneity of gender would make other considerations important when establishing a pecking order in society and as such, leaders would be quick to ensure that rational thought and action is valued at the cultural level over aggression in any event.
There would probably be an increase in neurodiversity for the same reasons, and given that you now have a culture where rational abilities are encouraged, it may actually be genetically selected as a preference. While Asperger's Syndrome is no longer a thing (it got rolled into the Autism Spectrum with DSM-V) figures showed that it affected males in far greater numbers than females, and that means that it will increase as a percentage of society by virtue of removing a cohort that was under the average of incidence in the first place. How do you fix it? The same way you fix it today; embrace it as a critical element within your culture that allows the people who exhibit such diversity to contribute to the society in different ways that benefit the whole. We should be doing that now, but I digress.
The single biggest issue that men will face over time is increasing colour blindness. The reason why this is suffered by males far more than females is that the recessive gene that causes it is on the part of the X chromosome that does not get paired with the shorter Y chromosome. Hence, a woman might carry the gene but not have it (the other X has the dominant gene that blocks it) but pass it on to her sons.
In our new world however, some of the X chromosomes will have the recessive gene, some won't. Unless you're doing genetic screening on your contributions to the embryo, eventually your entire population will be colour blind because there's a good chance that the X chromosome that you pick carries it until you ONLY have those chromosomes to pick from. Even if you only select X chromosomes from men who aren't colour blind, if they carry the recessive gene there's still a 50% chance their children will be colour blind as a result.
The only way to solve this is through proper genetic screening, but then you're also touching on the subject of eugenics.
In short, if your society is successful, it's going to have to be more rational, accept small companion groups as de facto families, and seriously consider that part of the X chromosome that doesn't pair to Y chromosomes as a valuable asset. If we do those things, accept that men living together doesn't have to be a sexual thing but a strong platonic bond instead that's capable of raising children in a similar way to how it's done now, then society doesn't even really have to change all that much.
A final point - economies.
If you look at the figures for most advanced countries that have a good education system and gender equality in the workplace, most have a stable population if you deduct immigration figures.
Japan. Russia. Australia - the list goes on.
Each country deals with this in a different way; Japan for instance is actually going down the companion bot path as their population ages and contracts. Russia is engaging in a massive immigration campaign to preserve growth.
The society of all males we're creating will have similar characteristics; great education system, and gender equality in the workplace (for different reasons I grant you) so that you can expect this population to end up with zero population growth.
That means, economies now lack the capacity to expand, outside of technological assistance.
This isn't as bad as you might think, and there's an argument to say that we need to be thinking about how to make this happen now. The key problem here is that companies are funded through growth and stock price increase, meaning that they are voracious when it comes to growth. As such, your all male society may need to revisit the corporate entity model so as to stabilise economic size to match population. How do you do that? I have no idea, but what I can say is that people are far more likely to stop producing when they have 'enough' than companies are. As such, the worst thing you could do if population size starts to stabilise is leave companies to grow.