If you're interested in the biological bases of morality, and in particular how pressures of natural selection have resulted in monogamy being more or less the norm for humans, you'll want to read the discussion in the comments here.
It seems that humans are by nature monogamous, more or less. This suggests that perhaps the 'laws' of biology and sociology were set up in a way that happens to promote what we now regard as 'morality' — which is consistent with the concept of a Creator.
Monogamy vs. promiscuity: Competing selection pressures
In one respect, natural selection tends to favor promiscuity:
• On average, promiscuous males are likely to have more children than monogamous ones.
• Promiscuous females also have a certain evolutionary advantage: As commenter Ross TenEyck points out, a female who is mated long-term to one male has the advantage of economic support from him, but she also bears the evolutionary risk that his genes will not be optimal for her own reproductive success. So it can be in her reproductive interest to cheat on her mate by secretly mating with another male to acquire his genes, if she can do that without jeopardizing her economic support.
But that’s not the end of the natural-selection inquiry.
The $64 question: Who is more likely to have grandchildren?
Another, crucial question is: How many of a given male's or female's children will survive to reach reproductive age themselves? In other words, are promiscuous males or females more or less likely to have grandchildren than monogamous ones?
Sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists have noted that the children of monogamous males, whose fathers stay with their mothers, tend to have more economic resources devoted to their survival and well-being than the children of promiscuous males. (We see traces of this even today in the poverty statistics concerning single mothers.) As a result, on average the offspring of monogamous males have a greater chance of surviving to reproductive age and producing grandchildren.
There's another, related phenomenon: males of many species tend to object, often violently, to supporting the offspring of other males. (It's said that a newly-dominant male lion in a pride often will immediately kill all the cubs, which were fathered by his predecessor.) For a scriptural take on this type of phenomenon, see this comment by a sociobiologist, 'Catholic Mom.' Even unmated human females often had (and have) fathers and brothers who would kill males who 'dishonored' their daughters or sisters. So a philanderer has a non-trivial chance of having his genetic contributions wiped out, suggesting that monogamy might be a safer evolutionary bet.
'Social' genetic pressures for monogamy: Group cohesion
Natural selection doesn't operate on a genetic basis alone. Group dynamics also create selection pressures, some of which favor monogamy.
Any group has a survival interest in preventing internal strife. A group that can keep the peace among its males is more likely to be able to collaborate successfully in, for example, hunting and warfare. The members of such a group are more likely to successfully raise children who in turn produce grandchildren than a group that is constantly riven by internal strife between competing males.
(I get the impression that in arguing about natural selection, a lot of people completely overlook the effects of kin- and group selection. The above-referenced sociobiologist agrees, but says that group selection is now thought of by most biologists as a type of kin selection; that may be true from a purely-genetic perspective, but it doesn't seem to take into account the fitness implications of cultural practices, or 'memes'.)
Net result: We're naturally monogamous - well, mostly
All these different, and sometimes conflicting, selection pressures, both genetic and cultural, have probably resulted in a real melange of motivations in our poor psyches.
Scientists conjecture that during humanity’s evolutionary lifespan, men who happened — or could be persuaded — to be monogamous, and females who preferred to mate with monogamous males, were more likely to have grandchildren than others.
We’re likely always going to have actual- or would-be philanderers. But there seems to be a strong case for thinking that monogamy as the norm — more or less — among humans is strongly influenced by biology.
Where is God here?
The above analysis doesn't mean the Creator had nothing to do with our morality. Quite the contrary: Our biology and sociology appear to follow 'laws' that result in our being more or less monogamous.
That's quite a trick, if you ask me, and another reason for awe at the Creator's handiwork.