lambsbottom 3 things i want to say in response to what you said
1. My point was that i see no reason why it was exclusively hetrosexual in the first place and that just saying "that's how it's always been" isn't really a reason for not allowing it to be for gay couples today.
2. Is upholding the definition of a word really that important? Like when you think about everything else we could and should be worrying about?
In fact...the dicitonary definition you provided doesn't have to be read as strictly hetrosexual
"a. The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other(notice it doesnt say between a man and a woman); matrimony." If this is really up to date this might be because same sex mariiage is becoming more common nowadays.
3. There already is a same-sex version of marriage (over here in the UK at least, called civil unions) but the problem is that you're effectively saying that same sex marriage doesn't deserve to be given the same recognition.
Same sex marriage was legalised over here not that long ago and i can honestly say that nothing has changed.