This tutorial will focus on gay marriage.
Here we go:
1) Misrepresent the aims of the "homosexual agenda" while bringing up irrelevant and untrue outcomes of marriage equality. For instance, you could say this:
"After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver's license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore* associated with it."
Note how gay marriage advocates are, hence their name, advocating for gay marriage and not easier divorces. Divorce is irrelevant to the gay marriage debate. However, blaming divorce on gay people will make some heterosexual people happy, as they then won't have to blame themselves for their relationship failures.
*In addition, using big legal-sounding words like "heretofore," even when unnecessary, will bolster your argument. It helps your cause if people are intimdated by how smart they think you are.
2) Warn that gay marriage will destroy the traditional family and end civilzation as we know it. Magnify the threat of gay marriage while ignoring the threat to families of annoyances such as terrorism, global warming, war, domestic violence, adultery, abuse, the shrinking middle class, and crime.
We've already seen evidence from the Scandinavian countries that de-facto homosexual marriage destroys the real Mc Coy. These two entities cannot coexist because they represent opposite ends of the universe.
Don't mention how homosexual and heterosexual relationships have been coexisting for a very long time. Also, ignore the marital issues between the two people involved in a marriage that may make it go bad. Referring to rising divorce rates as the "destruction" of heterosexual marriage and blaming this destruction on gay people will win you favor among some heterosexuals. Because really, if a man cheats on his wife with a younger woman, it's just not his fault.
3) Say that once marriage equality is achieved, people will be lining up to marry multiple partners, their pet donkeys, their cousins and little girls and boys. Instead of crossing those bridges when (and if) we get to them, say that it's better to deny marriage benefits to gay people in the first place. By bringing up bestiality, polygamy, and pedophilia in the context of gay marriage, you are implicitly comparing gay people to these social deviants. This comparison helps your case.
4) Pretend that your arsenal of anti-gay marriage arguments is more numerous than it really is. For instance, on your website, a forum where space isn't really an issue say something like this:
"I could list fifty or more legitimate concerns. Let me focus on only a few..."
"A book could be written on the reasons for this collision between matter and antimatter*, but I will cite three of them."
Clearly, you have many scholarly weapons of mass destruction at your disposal. You just don't want to use them right now.
*Also, note the use of physics references in the second quote. Physics = smart = you are correct.
5) Tell everyone that marriage equality advocates are actually against marriage. After all, marriage- with all that legal mumbo-jumbo and all that committment stuff- is a real pain:
"This is the real deal: Most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to create an entirely different legal structure."
What's this about lifetime committment you say?! Yick! But seriously, heterosexuals know firsthand how hard it can be to maintain such a committment. Current divorce statistics speak to that.
It also helps to follow such proclamations with a vague sentence that doesn't follow or really mean anything.
In addition, you should alsoignore plaintiff couples in gay marriage court cases who have been in monogamous relationships for 13-31 years. Surely these freakish gays aren't representative of most gays. And, surely, these couples are the reason why our divorce rates continue to rise!
5) Many people will be more impressed by secular arguments against marriage equality than by religious arguments. Therefore, proclaim that gay marriages "do nothing" for society and, therefore, should not be allowed.
"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."
Britney Spears' marriage(s) served the important societal interest of entertaining the world. Numerous abusive marriages served the important state interest of... well.... you know, I could write a book about that...
What it really may come down to for you, is this: You don't want your tax dollars to subsidize gay relationships (even though you expect their tax dollars to subsidize yours) because gay people don't serve the Very Important Compelling State Interest of having children:
"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 two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest."
Clearly, children are better off in orphanges than they are in loving families with two parents who are able to provide for them.
Also, pretend that despite an overpopulation problem, the human species is on the verge of extinction. And don't bring up the fact that more American kids in the world may not be a Compelling Planetary Interest.
Keep your righteous eyes peeled for more tips in the future. This is a pressing social issue, after all.