So, reading Euthyphro, leading up the dilemma, which doesn't even seem like a dilemma to me now, Socrates mentions the differences between active and passive verbs, that something is a loved-thing precisely because it is being loved, that something is a carried-thing precisely because it is being carried, and so on, and not that something is loved or carried by virtue of it being a loved-thing or a carried-thing. So I took this to be an illustration that cause proceeds effect. 

Remember we're operating under the definition that Euthyphro gives of piety as being equatable with what the gods love. So piety=what the gods love. Now, when Socrates asks 'is that pious pious because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is pious?' and Euthyphro answers that the latter is true, we have the gods loving something because it is pious. But x being pious means x is loved by the gods. 

Thus leading to the absurdity that the gods love something because it is god-loved, meaning the effect has proceeded the cause. Would I be right in interpreting the Euthyphro dilemma as primarily a lesson on the primacy of cause to effect? Because that's what I'm getting out of it, but then I look up the Euthyphro dilemma online and people seem to see a whole other set of implications that I'm not reading from Plato.

If I'm right in interpreting the Euthyphro dilemma as such, where does this dilemma even come from? What exactly are its historical roots and original motivation?