Answering my own question

In my last post, I wondered what opponents of same-sex marriage really stand to lose if same-sex marriage is legalized.  I should have remembered; it's all about male dominance over women.  In a roundabout way, gay marriage threatens male dominance and that's what conservatives are clearly afraid of losing.  If there's much doubt about that, today's round up of anti-homosexual rights arguments at Alas, a Blog should convince you. 
First of all, Ampersand finds this argument against same-sex marriage:

A lesbian couple (female-female) who wants to bring a child into the relationship is making the statement that a father is not a critically vital and necessary part of any child’s development. Other than to provide sperm for fertilization, a father’s role in a child’s life is non-essential.
 
Yep, lesbians have children in order to make a statement about how worthless they think fathers (men) are.  I guess it's inconceivable that a woman can do anything that isn't a direct reflection of her attitude towards male authority--at all points in time, she is either rebelling or accepting her rightful place.  To some of us, a lesbian couple having a baby is doing so because they love each other and want to build a family, but to Tolley here, they are petulant brats who are refusing male authority.  It's not about wanting children, it's about giving the finger to your male overlords. 
Funny how even by rejecting the necessity of male authority in every aspect of life, lesbian couples still manage to build their lives around the all-important Father, if only as an object to rebel against.  Either way, Tolley wins!
Lucia also posts about the Pope's objections to same-sex marriage, all of which are real head-scratchers.  It's standard now to concoct arguments about straight male superiority through innuendo and euphemism since just coming out and saying it will cause most people to reject you for you what you are, a sexist homophobe.  The Pope has a three point argument:

1. The Pope said marriage between a man and a woman is the "expression of a love which represents the communion of two people".
2. But he added that gay marriages would not demonstrate the "complementary nature of the sexes" and
3. It also represented a "threat to social order"
 
Lucia deals with how #1 is clearly nonsense.  #2, it seems to me, can be read in two different ways.  One way that you can read "complementary nature of the sexes" makes even me blush, so I doubt that's what the Pope means.  The other way is to read it as a euphemism for prescriptive gender roles; after all, if both spouses are women or men then who does the cooking and who does the eating?  As has been pointed out repeatedly, gay marriage is hardly the greatest threat to prescriptive gender roles; much more damaging has been women who've started saying, "You know what?  If you don't like my cooking, cook for your own damn self."  This, my friends is the greatest "threat to social order".