Should Webster's dictionary change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals?

This would be a change, not an amendment.Should Webster's dictionary change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals?
NO
I don't think there's a need to. Webster's definition should be sufficient. The American Heritage Dictionary defines marriage, as follows:



NOUN:

1.

a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

b. The state of being married; wedlock.

c. A common-law marriage.

d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

2. A wedding.



It is pretty obvious that the foregoing definitions are all-encompassing enough.Should Webster's dictionary change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals?
They already have.



By the way, Webster's (by far the best, in my opinion) dictionary policy REFLECTS language change: They do not CREATE new meanings to words - as any good dictionary should. This they state as their policy in there excellent Preface and Introduction to their full editions. The entire issue of language change and their process of determining definitions is covered very well. Recommend you pick up a copy.Should Webster's dictionary change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals?
Webster's dictionary changes with society.



Through the years there are words that have been added and eliminated.



So the definition of marriage should be the legal binding of two people regardless of their sex should be changed if it hasn't already.
The on line Merriam Webster Dictionary already has changed their definition of marriage to include same sex marriage.



In my opinion I don't see why they shouldn't seeing that many countries have recognized same sex marriage.
Marriage is a legal contract not a religious one.

The definition should include all people
The definition of a word is more important than someone's rights.