The definition of conservative isn't nearly as black and white, especially in the US.
What is conservative, in the sense of wanting things not change, is a constant moving bar and requires more context. Conservative, in the sense of going back to something in the past, requires context of how far you want to go back.
> Of course, conservatives have certain ideas of when exactly the "good old days" were. Homosexuality was very accepted (even encouraged) in ancient Greece, for example, but Christian US conservatives obviously don't want to go back to those days.
This is a perfect example of the latter. Anyone in the US that considers removing protections for sexual identity must first pick a time in the past where the laws and norms fit their preferences. That can be called conservative, but is it really?
For the former, my generation's big push was to finally make gay marriage legal. It was progressive for sure, and classically liberal in the sense that we were trying to further protect individual rights and freedom to choose. Once it passed, though, does it become conservative? Personally I prefer the definition of conservative that is more present focused, preferring to leave things as they are today unless we have a very good reason to change it. In that sense, protecting gay marriage and similar protections on the books today would be very conservative and trying to remove them would fall into some other bucket that likely doesn't have a name (reductivist? destructionist?).
> It was progressive for sure, and classically liberal in the sense that we were trying to further protect individual rights and freedom to choose. Once it passed, though, does it become conservative?
Radical gay liberationists argued (and still argue) that same-sex marriage was always conservative rather than truly progressive, since it is trying to co-opt and tame gay radicalism into sustaining traditional social institutions such as marriage, rather than what they argue would be the truly progressive approach, which would be to dismantle those institutions entirely.
Words like "conservative" and "progressive" have no inherent meaning, absent a background political ideology to read them against. Once you pick your political ideology, that ideology then gives those words meaning for you – but to someone else, who has chosen a different ideology, they can have radically different meanings. If we can't agree on what is the objectively correct ideology, then there we won't be able to agree on any meaning of those terms as objectively correct.
> Radical gay liberationists argued (and still argue) that same-sex marriage was always conservative rather than truly progressive, since it is trying to co-opt and tame gay radicalism into sustaining traditional social institutions such as marriage, rather than what they argue would be the truly progressive approach, which would be to dismantle those institutions entirely.
And I would argue that is an unnecessarily extreme stance. The concept of marriage can't be dismantled, at best we could remove any state concept of it and get rid of any legal protections, tax benefits, etc. I don't personally see the value in that over making sure everyone has access regardless of who they wish to marry, though regardless marriage as a concept would never be abolished as it exists both in state and religious contexts.
> Words like "conservative" and "progressive" have no inherent meaning, absent a background political ideology to read them against. Once you pick your political ideology, that ideology then gives those words meaning for you – but to someone else, who has chosen a different ideology, they can have radically different meanings. If we can't agree on what is the objectively correct ideology, then there we won't be able to agree on any meaning of those terms as objectively correct.
This is a really strange view on language in my opinion. We absolutely could define what the terms conservative and progressive mean, and the definitions could be absolute rather than relative. In my experience people do seem to have different understandings of the terms today, but that can easily be a failure to agree of definitions rather than a given side effect of the terms themselves being relative to one's starting point.
> The concept of marriage can't be dismantled, at best we could remove any state concept of it and get rid of any legal protections, tax benefits, etc
In Australia, unmarried couples (what we call de facto relationships) have essentially the same legal rights and benefits as legally married couples. In fact, Australia extended de facto status to same-sex couples before it legalised same-sex marriage, rendering the latter move an essentially symbolic measure, at least as far as Australian domestic law goes. There's no reason why other countries (including the US) couldn't do the same thing, except maybe "conservatism"?
And once unmarried relationships are made legally equivalent to married ones, you don't need to retain government recognition of marriage. One could just repeal marriage laws, and abolish marriage as a secular legal concept. If individuals want to get married as a cultural or religious tradition, that's a private matter in which the government doesn't need to get involved. If a couple are separating and can't agree on issues such as property and children, and hence need the courts to decide those issues, the courts don't need to know or care whether the couple are "married" or not.
I think most gay liberationists would be happy with an outcome in which marriage disappears from the law, and starts to fade from mainstream culture. Yes, there will probably always be minorities of religious conservatives/etc who retain it, but there's a saying "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"
> This is a really strange view on language in my opinion. We absolutely could define what the terms conservative and progressive mean, and the definitions could be absolute rather than relative
You can define words to mean whatever you want. The problem is, different people define words differently, and if definitions disagree, what makes one person's definitions objectively superior to another's?
No doubt one can come up with completely unreasonable definitions – if someone was to define either "conservative" or "progressive" as "the belief that the moon is made of green cheese", that's obviously not a definition worthy of anyone's time. But, if radical progressives start arguing "'mainstream' progressivism is really conservatism", that doesn't seem to me to be an inherently unreasonable position, in the way that the 'green cheese' definition is. It is a reasonable definition if their views are right; and its value if their views are wrong may depend on how exactly one thinks their views are wrong.
I generally agree with what you're saying here. I'm all for less regulation and smaller governments, that would include removing the legal definition and any legal accounting for the concept of marriage. I think you would still need to get rid of any benefits unmarried couples would be offered though, otherwise you really left all the government programs in place and did nothing but abolish a single term from the laws.
> You can define words to mean whatever you want. The problem is, different people define words differently, and if definitions disagree, what makes one person's definitions objectively superior to another's?
As far as I see it words are entirely arbitrary, there is no objectively superior definition. The only important factor is that definitions are shared. If everyone makes up their own definitions for a shared set of words we'll never understand each other.
I think we get into problems when people begin refining terms like "progressive" or "conservative" when people start adjusting their understanding to allow themselves to fit into one bucket or the other. I.e. people don't learn the shared definition of each term and decide if they fit into either bucket, the find themselves wanting to fit into one bucket or the other and redefine terms to reshape their reality. Tribalism at its finest, basically. The idea of not fitting into either category is a bit scary or stress-inducing, people want to fit in and it is easier to change definitions rather than to change their opinions or beliefs.
What is conservative, in the sense of wanting things not change, is a constant moving bar and requires more context. Conservative, in the sense of going back to something in the past, requires context of how far you want to go back.
> Of course, conservatives have certain ideas of when exactly the "good old days" were. Homosexuality was very accepted (even encouraged) in ancient Greece, for example, but Christian US conservatives obviously don't want to go back to those days.
This is a perfect example of the latter. Anyone in the US that considers removing protections for sexual identity must first pick a time in the past where the laws and norms fit their preferences. That can be called conservative, but is it really?
For the former, my generation's big push was to finally make gay marriage legal. It was progressive for sure, and classically liberal in the sense that we were trying to further protect individual rights and freedom to choose. Once it passed, though, does it become conservative? Personally I prefer the definition of conservative that is more present focused, preferring to leave things as they are today unless we have a very good reason to change it. In that sense, protecting gay marriage and similar protections on the books today would be very conservative and trying to remove them would fall into some other bucket that likely doesn't have a name (reductivist? destructionist?).