In effect, individualization is a double-edged sword. In exchange for new personal freedoms and rights, beneficiaries are agreeing to, if not being forced to, assume new risks and responsibilities.
In addition to opening the door to self-fulfillment, “the rise of individual rights and freedoms has its price,” writes Nikolai Genov, a sociologist at the Berlin Free University in “Challenges of Individualization,” published earlier this year.
Placing an exclusive stress on the expansion of rights and freedoms of individuals by disregarding or underrating the concomitant rise of individual responsibilities brings about social pathologies. They undermine solidarity as the glue of social life.
Leadingchurch.com 
Read this with interest. I take this as the smoking gun for linking the push to sexual/gender self-identity (SSM, trans-mania) and neo-liberalism. The costs for SSM are not in the marriage itself, which is actually a fairly conservative institution, but in the impact of neo-liberalism on those who must suffer others economic decisions. If you want to push through the issue, you must first grapple with ideology of the age and the way that a focus on the individual as social actor (itself an economic signifier) — the battle is not about sexual ethics or practices (pace Dreher), but about the anthropology of marriage, that it is not good to be alone; or of Judges when each one did what was right in his own eyes; etc. Our congregations become places thick with social obligation and engagement.