to what end?
The left pushes promiscuous heterosexuality and also homosexuality (which is almost always promiscuous) so that people will not form into families -- loyalty to a family might come before loyalty to a super-state, and the socialists cannot allow that. This really comes into play concerning children -- when children are not the product of a stable family, they become kind of a trophy (or a burden) that is passed from one unstable couple to another. This is especially true in the underclass, where a mother might have several children from different men, and the only father figure might be one abusive boyfriend after another. Such children will not strongly identify with a family, and they will be more likely to not be self-sufficient -- they will either be on welfare or in prison.
I do believe it is the goal of the socialists to break down self-sufficiency in people to make them dependent on the state for everything. I see children as becoming trophies for temporary gay couples or a burden for temporary, dysfunctional hetero couples -- either way, children are reduced to the status of mere things that one can collect or neglect as one wishes. And then these children grow up to use people in a similar way their parents used them -- unable to form any real loyalty to anyone. If other people are mere things to be used at one's whim, this will create all sorts of social instability that will cause people to demand a draconian super-state to protect them from each other.
Read Huxley's "Brave New World." I think it is a more likely scenario than Orwell's "1984," although the super-state the socialists want to build will have elemets of both. In "Brave New World," children are produced in a factory (cloned?) and concepts such as love, family, mother, and father are taboo.