I think that description was about the conservative philosophy, not the abrupt change.

@rway No, it was claiming conservatism is against abrupt change, which may be generally true, but then equated traditional values with that abrupt change, and claimed conservatism is against traditional values. That kind of twisted logic is the same convoluted reasoning that tries to associate Republicans with the KKK - a Democrat founded organization, and claim Republicans are for big government and greater restriction of the rights of Americans, something Democrats have been going for since 1937 with the birth of the vast federal bureaucracy under FDR.

“who you may marry or not”. What?

I think the key to this observation is the fact that "conservative" has no meaning until you establish the context.
A Cultural Conservative would favor heterosexual marriage and illegalization of many drugs; depending upon the facets of culture that they wish to "conserve".
But a Constitutional Conservative (and the two are not mutually exclusive) would recognize that enforcing these preferences in the private sector is not a legitimate role of Government; no matter what they, themselves, would prefer.

I think you are correct... in that Constitutional Conservative is probably synonymous with "Libertarian"... which used to just be "Liberal" until Progressives absorbed that label into their Orwellian NewSpeak catalog.

Everybody is "conservative" in one sense or another. The Founders, themselves, were "Progressives" in their own contemporary context... seeking to supplant the status quo with a new vision. Now, the desire to "conserve" what they established, is a conservative position by definition.
And, modern "Progressives" from the 1960's-1970's, want desperately to conserve the "progress" that they've made so far, by protecting the paper-"Right" to kill their offspring, and their racist social-engineering policies that explicitly exclude White people, for example. That makes them "conservatives" in that context.

Unless qualified with context... the terms are pretty much useless, just like the terms "Left" and "Right". Labels are only useful as rhetorical shortcuts, when the receiver knows exactly what you mean when you use it. We all know generally who we are talking about, when we say "Liberals" or "Conservatives" in casual conversation. But "generally" does not suffice when you're trying to seriously get to the bottom of some issues that run all the way down to core, foundational, axiomatic principles.

@Rick-A
Vast majority of “conservatives” believes homosexuality is a sin and should be outlawed.
Or anything contrary to whatever belief they adhere to.

If you you are a “conservative” and don’t think that, you are likely a libertarian.

@Hanno or, if you're a conservative who believes homosexuality is a sin, but it's God's job to judge and punish sin, not the government's job... then you are likely a Libertarian.
America is not a Theocracy... pretty sure New Zealand isn't either.
Laws are for protecting people's Rights, not punishing sin.