[tdadams]

The more "sexually liberated" a society gets, the bigger and more intrusive its government gets. Government was smaller, less intrusive, and taxes were lower back in the sexually conservative fifties.

Correlation does not equal causation. Surely you know that. I could probably produce a study showing that cigar smokers earn 50% more than the national average, but it doesn't mean my income will necessarily go up if I start smoking cigars.

[puroresu]

This isn't some new theory I've created. Aldous Huxley's Brave New World described a repressive totalitarian society that kept the population docile via a "liberal" dose of sex and drugs.

The left knows that a percentage of the population will trade away their actual liberties (free speech, property rights, gun rights, etc.) for sensual pleasures. Legal abortion and legal homosexual sodomy aren't threats to an expansive state. In fact, they encourage it. But traditional liberties and traditional Judeo-Christian family values are such a threat.

So for "liberals" and other socialists, it's a great trade-off if people start defining freedom as sexual libertinism. It creates a snowball effect, because the cultural rot in society created by sexual irresponsibility leads to still more government intervention. For example, in the 1950's we didn't have millions and millions of unwed teen moms needing to be taken care of by government for the rest of their lives.

So things like yesterday's sodomy ruling trigger consequences that demand governmental intervention, MORE governmental intervention than was required to ban sodomy in the first place (largely a symbolic law to keep gays discrete). And more and more people in our dumbed down society will now associate "liberty" with sodomy rather than freedom of association or the right to bear arms, the latter two being under assault by the same court system that fawns over sodomy.

An immoral people will not stay free for the long haul. The "liberals" know this and work tirelessly to immoralize our society.