BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marijuana can have a beneficial mind-altering effect if used right

Marijuana use can alter one's perception of reality or consciousness. The alteration need not be thought of as spiritual or religious to be respected for what it is; a fresh look on a reality that we are programed as humans to perceive only in a particular manner. Marijuana can help humans perceive that complex reality from simply a different perspective, which can benefit our appreciation for that reality and our unique and limited perceptions of it. With this more intelligent approach to marijuana consumption, it is easy to argue that mental, perceptual, and societal benefits exist.
Marijuana use causes apoptosis or programmed cell death

Unlike alcohol and tobacco, cannabis has a hallucinatory effect on the mind. This is inherently dangerous in itself. Furthermore, just like other drugs, there are many individuals addicted to cannabis who will resort to crime in order to fund their addiction.[citation needed] The legalization of cannabis will lead to the drug becoming more readily available, which in turn will mean that many more people will gain access to it. This will subsequently lead to an increase in the crime rate. Initial statistics from the Netherlands shows that the decriminalization and eventual legalization of cannabis did led to an increase in crime in Dutch society[citation needed].
Marijuana consumers are typically not convicted of a crime

Many marijuana offenders are not convicted of a crime. This means that most of the money being put into law enforcement to battle marijuana results in no convictions. It is estimated that $1.6 billion is spent each year policing marijuana crimes, but most of these crimes lead to no conviction. Therefor, millions of dollars are thrown into a system that typically makes no difference in the issue of marijuana; all the while putting the government deeper into financial debt. By legalizing marijuana, the tax that can be put into place would possibly be able to bring in an estimated $2 billion according to offered California legislation.
Illegal Marijuana directly produces socially deviant behavior.

With Marijuana being illegal, those who participate in it's use are automatically engaging in socially deviant behavior. This label of socially deviant behavior because of marijuana use does not, however, deter the use of marijuana. However, marijuana is no more or less a danger to the individual than smoking tobacco. This is why marijuana users typically refuse to comply with the laws and rules regulating it's use. Because this socially deviant behavior is also illegal, this increases the amount of money spent policing and housing new criminals, many of which are not distributing marijuana, but have marijuana for personal use.
Uncertainty of marijuana's health effects makes illegality prudent.

There certainly remains uncertainty and debate about marijuana's health effects. This makes it prudent to error on the side of caution and maintain illegality in states where this is the status quo. What if, for example, a state decided to legalize marijuana, to only discover five years later that marijuana has a dramatically more negative impact on human cognition than previously thought, or that it substantially increased the risks of psychosis? This would be politically and socially damaging. More scientific conclusions should be reached before decisive action is taken in any direction, as clearly the 60 years or so accumulated research to date, which is more than any pharmacutical drug testing standards employ, is insufficient.
Children have been brainwashed on "high costs" of marijuana.

It is the contention by proponents of prohibition that our youth "grow up in a society where they have no knowledge of the costs" of marijuana usage. This is false. The fact is, our children are inundated with anti-marijuana propaganda on a daily basis from all sources such as television "public service" announcements, classroom instruction, MANY anti-marijuana children's organizations... and our own government, in that it is currently illegal. They are never allowed the benefits of a non-biased opinion on the subject. They are subjected to "guest speakers" in school who have had very bad experiences from drugs, shown the possible worst case consequences from television show themes... but never given access to the opinions of those who have had GOOD experiences (such as tribal shamen, chemotherapy recipients or glaucoma treatees). We even make it illegal to allow them to see another side by adding drug use as a criteria by which to disallow movie entry to any below a certain age. It is easy to brainwash a generation into believing that something is wrong if you illegalize it and render it socially unacceptable. That IS loss of liberty; that IS government control of freedom of choice; and that IS social ramification.
Legalization of marijuana would make it easier for scientific studies to take place

, thereby increasing the public knowledge-base and providing a more accurate picture of the physical, psychological, spiritual and sociologic effects of the drug. Just as the lift of taboo on discussions of a sexual nature in public schools has resulted in a more informed youth as to the dangers of unprotected sex (in the effort to reduce incidents of sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancies), so would the increased availability and accuracy of scientific data on marijuana in health and sociologic concerns serve to curb the effectiveness of peer pressure tactics and to reduce the ratio of abuse to responsible use.
People should be free to use marijuana as long as it harms no one else

People should be at liberty to treat their bodies how they want to. Indeed, people are allowed to eat and drink to their detriment and even death, so why shouldn't they be able to harm themselves with marijuana use? This is, of course, assuming that their use does not harm anyone else. This means, as with substances such as alcohol or cigarrettes, that regulations be put in place to ensure that one individual's consumption of marijuana does not violate the liberties of another citizen. If this is achievable with alcohol and cigarettes, it seems achievable with marijuana.
Marriage allows gays to see each other in hospitals.

Lambda Legal re-visits a story on OpposingViews.com about Bobby Daniel, a gay man dying in a hospital. His lifelong partner Bill Flanigan was kept for hours in the waiting room because he was not considered "family". Bill would later say, "When you love someone and make a commitment to each other for good times and bad, there is an awful feeling when you can’t follow through on your promises. I have a huge hole in my heart, and my soul, because I wasn’t allowed to be with Bobby when he needed me most."[5] Marriage ensures that gay couples can see each other in any hospital no matter the circumstances. This is a fundamental right that should be afforded to couples.
Free association

Everyone has the right to enter whatever consensual relationships they choose, but no one has the right to have the government recognize and grant special benefits to them merely because of that relationship. Thus, the law cannot recognize "gay marriage", "straight marriage", and "bisexual marriage" as distinct rights. If it did, then there would be no equality amongst them because gays would not have "straight marriage rights", bisexuals would not have "gay marriage rights", etc. Further, being unmarried is just as much a right as being married, yet the law should not create "unmarried rights".
Gay marriage is no threat to procreation in overpopulated world

Scott Bidstrup. "Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives": "5. Marriages are for ensuring the continuation of the species. The proponents of such an argument are going to have a really hard time persuading me that the human species is in any real danger of dying out through lack of procreation. If the ten percent of all the human race that is gay were to suddenly refrain from procreation, I think it is safe to say that the world would probably be better off."
Gay marriage exists successfully in many countries

Alliance Defense Fund on OpposingViews.com. Retrieved 3.1.2010: "Twenty-eight nations have helped same-sex couples keep their commitments, and the sky hasn’t fallen. For the United States to lag behind so many other nations contradicts its own history and principles. [...] Same-sex couples can marry under legislation passed in Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, and The Netherlands. Such couples have many of the protections of marriage in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay. And they have at least some protections in Andorra, Austria, Brazil, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Israel, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovenia, and Switzerland. That’s 28 nations ahead of the United States in keeping promises and helping couples keep their own promises."
Gay marriage does not help society; can't justify costs

Adam Kolasinksi. "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage." The Tech (M.I.T.) February 20th, 2004: "Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage. [...] When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between to unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children."
Gay marriage ban is analogous to interracial marriage ban

Gail Mathabane. "Gays face same battle interracial couples fought." USA Today. January 25, 2004: "Before the U.S. Supreme Court delivered the landmark Loving decision, interracial couples were in the same boat that same-sex couples are in today. They were vilified, persecuted and forbidden to marry. Interracial marriage was considered a felony punishable by five years in a state penitentiary."
Marriage is mainly for reproduction; can't include gays

Margarette Somerville. "The case against gay marriage." McGill Center for Medicine, Ethics and Law. April 29, 2003: "Marriage is, and has been for millennia, the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values and symbols related to procreation. That is, it establishes the values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation and the nurturing of that life in the basic societal unit, the family. [...] To change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples would destroy its capacity to function in the ways outlined above, because it could no longer represent the inherently procreative relationship of opposite-sex pair-bonding."
Public opinion should not effect right to gay marriage

Gail Mathabane. "Gays face same battle interracial couples fought." USA Today. January 25, 2004: "Critics of gay marriage point to polls that seem to support their position. In a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll last month, 65% said they oppose same-sex marriage. But mass opinion should not dictate judicial decisions. In 1948, when California became the first state to strike down a ban on interracial marriage, nine out of 10 Americans opposed such unions."
Gays can already obtain most benefits of marriage

Adam Kolasinksi. "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage." The Tech (M.I.T.) February 20th, 2004: "Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society."
Gay marriage wrongly legitimizes homosexuality

Al Rantell, a homosexual talk-show host in LA. “forcing a change to an institution as fundamental and established by civilization as marriage is deemed by gay activists and other cultural ’liberals’ as the equivalent of the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for homosexuality itself. The reasoning goes that if someone can marry someone of the same sex, then being gay is as acceptable and normal as being short or tall.”[4] This is a legitimate concern to individuals that don't see homosexuality as a natural and moral practise, and who would rather not encourage it.
Gay marriage ban is incomparable to biracial ban

Adam Kolasinksi. "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage." The Tech (M.I.T.) February 20th, 2004: "Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state's interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation."
Marriage is not about love, but starting family

Margarette Somerville. "The case against gay marriage." McGill Center for Medicine, Ethics and Law. April 29, 2003: "Jonathan Rauch, in his recent book Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, defines marriage as essentially a legally enforced, long-term relation of mutual aid and support between two sexual partners. Marriage, he says, "is putting one person ahead of all others." According to Rauch, "if marriage means anything at all," it is knowing "that there is someone out there for whom you are always first in line." We can here leave aside how odd this definition will sound to any married couple with young children, partners whose first responsibility is not obviously spousal."
Acceptance of gay marriage should not be imposed on citizens

Susan Shell. "The liberal case against gay marriage." Public Interest. Summer, 2004: "That liberal sword cuts both ways [...] American citizens should not have the sectarian beliefs of gay-marriage advocates imposed on them unwillingly. If proponents of gay marriage seek certain privileges of marriage, such as legal support for mutual aid and childbearing, there may well be no liberal reason to deny it to them. But if they also seek positive public celebration of homosexuality as such, then that desire must be disappointed. The requirement that homosexual attachments be publicly recognized as no different from, and equally necessary to society as, heterosexual attachments is a fundamentally illiberal demand. [...] To insist otherwise is not only psychologically and culturally implausible; it imposes a sectarian moral view on fellow citizens who disagree and who may hold moral beliefs that are diametrically opposed to it."
Civil unions offer same benefits as marriage

Susan Shell. "The liberal case against gay marriage." Public Interest. Summer, 2004: "Keeping the goals that advocates emphasize in mind, one can reach a principled and liberal public policy toward gay marriage. Most, if not all, of the goals of the gay marriage movement could be satisfied in the absence of gay marriage. Many sorts of individuals, and not just gay couples, might be allowed to form "civil partnerships" dedicated to securing mutual support and other social advantages. If two unmarried, elderly sisters wished to form such a partnership, or two or more friends (regardless of sexual intimacy) wanted to provide mutually for one another "in sickness and in health," society might furnish them a variety of ways of doing so--from enhanced civil contracts to expanded "defined benefit" insurance plans, to new ways of dealing with inheritance." See Debate: Civil unions vs. gay marriage for more arguments along these lines.
Children do not need male/female parent role models

Kenji Yoshino. "Too good for Marriage." NYTimes Op-ed. July 14th, 2006: "Like most arguments against gay marriage, this 'role model' argument assumes straight couples are better guides to life than gay couples. And like other blatantly anti-gay arguments, it falls apart under examination. In a decision last month in a case concerning gay foster parents, the Arkansas Supreme Court found no evidence that children raised by gay couples were disadvantaged compared with children raised by straight couples."
All anti-gay-marriage arguments are ultimately anti-gay

Tod Lindberg. "The case against gay marriage." Washington Times Op-ed. 2003: "I think that once you grant the essential premise, namely, the presumption of equality, there is only one basis for saying 'no' to Mr. X and Mr. Y, and that is that what they are doing is wrong. The only serious basis for claiming that gay marriage undermines marriage (the union of a man and woman) is that the problem lies not with the 'marriage' part of gay marriage but with the 'gay' part. Thus, one denies the status of marriage to those whose union, being sinful or immoral, is precisely not that of holy matrimony."
Gay marriage devalues the institution of marriage

It has been this way throughout history, regardless of religion, in ALL societies from primative to developed. It is natural law. It provides the structure for procreation and then nurturing, educating, and developing the children into productive members of society. Each child needs a father and a mother in their upbringing to model both. There is ample evidence that when either are missing, poverty and dysfunction increases (however noble the efforts of the single parent).
Marriage is categorically about procreation despite exceptions

Susan M. Shell. "The liberal case against gay marriage." Public Interest. Summer 2004: "marriage, in all the diversity of its forms, draws on a model of partnership rooted in human generation. [...] Gay relations bear a less direct relation to the generative act in its full psychological and cultural complexity than relations between heterosexual partners, even when age, individual preference, or medical anomaly impede fertility. Gay relations have a plasticity of form, an independence from natural generation, for which they are sometimes praised, but which, in any case, also differentiates them from their heterosexual counterparts." In other words, male-female partnerships, categorically, hold the potential for procreation. It is true that there are exceptions, such as infertile couples, but these are exceptions. Gays, conversely, cannot, as a category, reproduce together. This makes them ineligible for marriage, while still making it acceptable for infertile male-female marriages to exist, as they are consistent with the rule.
Civil unions are "separate, but not equal"

See Debate: Civil unions vs. gay marriage Civil unions are "separate, but not equal" During the 50s and 60 in the United States, a segregationist principle was established called "separate but equal" under the Jim Crow laws of the time. This was struck down by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, who wrote: "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."[6] Civil unions are precisely the same arrangement, attempting to give gays a "separate" arrangement than marriage, while conferring "equal" benefits. But, because "separate can never be equal", civil unions can never equal. Civil unions, therefore, are unequal, segregationist, and discriminatory, just as were the "separate but equal" laws of the past.
Gay parenting is just as good as straight parenting

Scott Bistrup. "Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives" (2004): "A long list of "studies, reports, and articles all reach the same conclusion: Children raised by lesbians and gay men do not differ from children raised by heterosexuals 'on measures of popularity, social adjustment, gender role behavior, gender identity, intelligence, self-concept, emotional problems, interest in marriage and parenting, locus of control, moral development, independence, ego functions, object relations, or self esteem.'"
Opponents of gay marriage are not simply "anti-gay"

Jack Kerwick. "The failed case for gay marriage." Intellectual Conservative. February 19th, 2010: "Presumably, the mere fact that homosexuals are denied something that they value or desire proves that the resistance which they face is driven by 'hate.' The grossly simplistic and glaring question-begging of this reasoning aside, when taken to its extreme logical term, it's blatant silliness becomes obvious as well, for its inescapable implication is that whenever anyone's desires are frustrated by others, it can only be because of the latter's hatred of them." It should be noted that many supporters of homosexuality (such as Barack Obama), and many homosexuals themselves, oppose gay marriage, often in support of civil unions.
Gay marriage devalues marriage, frequency of obtaining it

"High Cost of Tampering with Marriage – Kids Hit Hardest." Alliance Defense Fund on OpposingViews.com: "according to David Blankenhorn's book, The Future of Marriage, evidence suggests that when states adopt same-sex “marriage,” opposite-sex couples are more likely to decide that there is no need to get married prior to having children (cause and effect is an open question, but the correlation is definite). An increase in single parenthood and family dissolution as a secondary effect of devaluing marriage will be devastating to children and will generate significant additional costs to taxpayers."
Denying marriage to infertile would be too costly

Adam Kolasinksi. "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage." The Tech (M.I.T.) February 20th, 2004: "A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate."
Definition of marriage can and should evolve to include gays

"Let them wed." Economist. January 4th, 1996: "Marriage may be for the ages—but it changes by the year. And never, perhaps, has it changed as quickly as since the 1960s. In western law, wives are now equal rather than subordinate partners; interracial marriage is now widely accepted both in statute and in society; marital failure itself, rather than the fault of one partner, may be grounds for a split. With change, alas, has come strain."
Civil unions offer same benefits as marriage

See Debate: Civil unions vs. gay marriage. Sample argument: Civil unions offer same benefits as marriage Susan Shell. "The liberal case against gay marriage." Public Interest. Summer, 2004: "Keeping the goals that advocates emphasize in mind, one can reach a principled and liberal public policy toward gay marriage. Most, if not all, of the goals of the gay marriage movement could be satisfied in the absence of gay marriage. Many sorts of individuals, and not just gay couples, might be allowed to form "civil partnerships" dedicated to securing mutual support and other social advantages. If two unmarried, elderly sisters wished to form such a partnership, or two or more friends (regardless of sexual intimacy) wanted to provide mutually for one another "in sickness and in health," society might furnish them a variety of ways of doing so--from enhanced civil contracts to expanded "defined benefit" insurance plans, to new ways of dealing with inheritance."
Gay marriage is a civil, not religious, issue

Andrew Sullivan. "The conservative case for gay marriage." Time. June 22, 2003: "As for religious objections, it's important to remember that the issue here is not religious. It's civil. Various religious groups can choose to endorse same-sex marriage or not as they see fit. Their freedom of conscience is as vital as gays' freedom to be treated equally under the civil law. And there's no real reason that the two cannot coexist."