I can only say that I believe in Gods plan and his plan was male and female. Its the only one that makes any sense.
I used to think as you do up until a couple years ago. Then I started doing a lot of thinking--I had started reading about Islam and was considering how I thought it was a brutal and unjust religion, and I realized that if I told anyone that they would counter by asking me how it was much different from some parts of the OT. That kicked off about a year of thinking and reading and talking to various people. The upshot is summarized in this post:
Unfortunately the background I came from is pretty fundamentalist, so I was taught that the Bible including OT was inspired and that God really did speak to various prophets. In the past year or so I've been trying to reconcile that with the sketchy morality depicted in the OT. There seem to be two different ideas of morality among Christians (although a lot of times they coexist in the mind of a person even though they're contradictory. . .) The first is that morality is derived from the nature of God, and God is immutable, thus morality is absolute and never changes. Therefore it ought to be always wrong to murder an innocent, yet God is said to have told Joshua to eradicate the Canaanites down to the babies.The second idea of morality is that our moral laws are just made up by God (possibly completely arbitrarily) and that God is not bound to those rules at all and can change them at any time. I think this is an attempt to detour around the problem of God ordering acts that we would all say are evil. At the same time they say that God is Good, not because we can look at his actions and judge them as being good (God is said to be beyond human understanding and judging his actions is presumptuous), but because God says of himself that he is good. I find this very distasteful because it renders God completely incomprehensible and untrustworthy. Perhaps God really has a personality more like Satan, has handed us moral laws to follow just to play with us, and is telling us that he is good while planning a surprise for those who choose to follow him into the afterlife. . .
So from my point of view either the Judeo-Christian God exists but is too incompetent to transmit his will to his followers, or he exists but is possibly really evil or completely amoral and definitely untrustworthy, or he does not exist and the Bible comes about from human beings gradually building onto a framework of myth. My fundamentalist background makes me unwilling to accept the first, the second I really hope is not true and I wouldn't want to serve that God anyway, and the third I find the most reasonable conclusion, unfortunately.
I had always been taught to think that morality was based upon absolutes, but so many times those absolutes ended up being so relative! Infanticide is wrong--unless you're in Joshua's army and it's a Canaanite baby. Incest is wrong--unless you're one of Adam and Eve's kids. I began wondering, if these things can be wrong according to God at one time and right according to God at another, does that mean that there is anything inherently wrong about them that we should feel such indignation towards them? Rather it seemed to me that we should enact God's prescribed punishment for whatever infraction was currently upon God's prohibited actions list in a dispassionate way. So you killed your newborn--you must be executed, but we won't be angry that you killed the baby, but that you violated God's law in doing so! The action of infanticide itself would have no more moral significance than the action of wearing a blue shirt, supposing God had declared the color blue to be prohibited on pain of death.
The whole thing became very distasteful to me. Once I had come to the conclusion above--that morality is not inherent, but what God says it is at the time, that God's character may not be "good" according to our judgment at all as a result, and that God most likely did not exist--I decided I had to work out a more internally consistent sense of morality.
I based this upon the principle that no person is inherently more valuable than any other person. I have a tendency to value myself more highly than you, but intellectually I realize that is a baseless preference. From this principle I draw the conclusion that each person should do as they like unless in doing so they harm another person. If the harm is sufficient, that justifies others stepping in.
I do not see that Mary Cheney is harming anyone by having a long-term monogamous relationship with her partner, nor by having a baby. Therefore I see no reason for myself or others to condemn her.