The Forgotten Vow
The Debate Over Monogamy
“Forsaking all others.” These simple words, often nestled in wedding vows, encapsulate the promise at the heart of marriage: a pledge of exclusive devotion to one partner. In an age that celebrates freedom and individuality, monogamy can seem old-fashioned or even oppressive. Modern discourse sometimes treats it as a quaint constraint to be cast aside in favor of personal liberty or “honesty” about our wandering desires. Nowhere is this tension more evident than in conversations within the LGBTQ community, where the hard-won right to marry has raised questions about what marriage should mean for same-sex couples. Is the expectation of monogamy an outdated relic, or is it a foundation stone for true love and commitment?
What Is Marriage Without Monogamy?
What makes marriage marriage?
Is it the legal contract, the commingling of finances and property, the joint rearing of children, companionship and emotional support, or the social and community recognition? Many relationships—friendships, cohabitations, other family relationships, even business partnerships—can be described by those attributes. Throughout the history of Western civilization, marriages have indeed served multiple purposes (economic, political, familial), but one defining feature has set marriage apart from other relationships: the expectation of lifelong sexual exclusivity. Monogamy—the commitment to “forsake all others” in matters of the heart and body—is the singular characteristic that differentiates marriage from even the closest non-marital relationships. Remove that expectation, and one must ask: What, then, distinguishes a marriage from any other deep partnership or familial bond?
Some scholars have noted that if marriage were stripped of its monogamous nature, it would lose any distinctive structure. Princeton professor Robert P. George argues that marriage is a “comprehensive sharing of life” requiring an all-encompassing commitment—“one that is pledged to permanence and to sexual fidelity,” a mutual binding exclusive to two partners. Friendship involves love and loyalty, and sibling bonds involve lifetime support—but marriage uniquely adds a bodily union sealed by exclusive sexual intimacy. If that exclusivity is removed, marriage collapses into just an emotional union or social arrangement, no different in kind from other relationships. As George puts it, “There would be no ground for understanding marriage as a sexual partnership at all if the only thing that sets it apart is an emotional union.” In other words, absent monogamy, marriage has no conceptual boundary—why even limit it to two people, or call it marriage at all? Indeed, monogamy provides the primary justification for limiting the institution to two persons.
Same-sex marriage advocates of the last generation understood that they were asking society to expand marriage, not to empty it of meaning. As we explored in the previous essay, the fight for marriage equality was successful in winning hearts and minds because Americans understood that it was the norms of fidelity and commitment—demonstrated through monogamy—that could benefit same-sex couples as much as straight ones. Andrew Sullivan argued that gay couples seeking marriage were not trying to redefine the institution, but to join in its core tradition of mutual devotion. He described the push for gay marriage as “a development in favor of the ideas of fidelity, of love, of commitment, of monogamy,” essentially an embrace of the very institution that society venerates.
Consider the alternative: If monogamy were considered optional or irrelevant, many argued, then civil unions or domestic partnerships could have sufficed for same-sex couples. Those arrangements can secure legal and financial protections, hospital visitation rights, inheritance, and so on. Why insist on marriage—with all its cultural and religious weight—if not to partake in the full expectation of spousal commitment that marriage signifies? It wasn’t access to tax benefits or joint insurance that moved hearts and minds in the marriage equality debate; it was the image of two people in love, publicly vowing exclusivity and permanence. A marriage without monogamy would be a mere contract, lacking the “forsaking all others” pledge that gives the relationship its profound depth.
To be sure, marriage has many other important facets: emotional support, financial security, and often the hope of family creation. But none of these are inherently exclusive to marriage. You can love someone deeply and not be married; you can raise children or buy a house together without tying the knot. It is the lifelong monogamous commitment that most clearly differentiates marriage from all other forms of human association and is the unique expectation that society has traditionally reserved for marriage. It’s telling that even in cultures where arranged marriages or economic marriages were common, a public expectation of fidelity usually attached to the union (at least officially, and often more strictly for women). When we remove that expectation, marriage’s identity dissolves.
As a thought experiment: imagine a world in which marriages were no more sexually exclusive than friendships. The word spouse would denote merely a primary partner among many; “cheating” would cease to exist because there would be no promise to betray. In such a world, what unique honor or status would marriage hold? It might be reduced to a state-sanctioned friendship with tax perks—hardly the “defining milestone” that people dream of.
That is why, absent monogamy, many critics note that nothing truly distinguishes marriage anymore. In fact, some academics have already begun pushing that logic. In recent years, there have been calls from certain intellectual corners to legally recognize multi-partner relationships and “open” marriages. One report highlighted a petition by over 300 LGBT scholars advocating for legal recognition of relationships with more than two partners, essentially arguing to decouple marriage from exclusivity altogether.
At the most recent General Convention of the Episcopal Church, resolutions were proposed to normalize polyamory, challenging the long-held presumption that exclusive, monogamous unions are the only legitimate form of committed love. The resolution failed… this time. If marriage is just about love or companionship, why not three people? Why not any consenting group? Removing monogamy from marriage allows it to become infinitely malleable.
And yet, even the leading champions of the conservative case for same-sex marriage—a case built around the stabilizing influence of monogamy—have come to doubt whether monogamy is a realistic or necessary expectation for same-sex couples. To his credit, Andrew Sullivan was fully transparent about his views on monogamy even before same-sex marriage became a reality in 2015. Since then, there has been growing interest within the LGBTQ community in exploring alternatives to monogamy, including polyamory, but especially what is known interchangeably as “ethical non-monogamy” (ENM) or “consensual non-monogamy” (CNM).
One of the most famous proponents of consensual non-monogamy is advice columnist and author Dan Savage. The title of Savage’s documentary has become the popular moniker for the relationship model he advocates: Monogamish. Savage’s arguments were originally geared toward the LGBTQ community, but he has since earned many admirers among younger heterosexuals—perhaps early evidence of what Sullivan predicted in 2012: that gay open marriages might “lead the way in resuscitating [marriage] for the 21st Century.”
I am often told that monogamous marriage is in no need of defending; that it is doing perfectly well, thank you very much. Among heterosexuals, I concede that the vast majority support monogamy (83%, according to a 2023 YouGov poll). The same poll also found that two-thirds of respondents are themselves in a “completely monogamous” relationship.
However, the headline of the same poll is why I might respectfully push back on the suggestion that monogamous marriage is in no need of defending. The poll’s main finding was that one-third (34%) of Americans “describe their ideal relationship as something other than complete monogamy.” The categories listed under “other than complete monogamy” include a rich tapestry of alternatives, including “friends with benefits,” “open relationships,” “polyamory,” “polygamy,” “swinging,” and—not to be forgotten—“throuple.”
Clearly, monogamous marriage is not at imminent risk of extinction among heterosexual couples. The data among the LGBTQ community, however, tell a very different story. A Pew Research poll shows an enormous gap between those in the LGBTQ community and the rest of the country on the acceptability of non-monogamous marriage. Three-quarters (75%) of LGBTQ Americans find “open marriages” acceptable, compared to only 29% of straight Americans. I think I still have my work cut out for me.
The Arguments Against Monogamy
Let’s unpack the common arguments against monogamy by simulating a friendly debate with Dan Savage.
Argument 1: “Lifelong monogamy is unrealistic (especially for men) and sets relationships up for failure.”
“It is unrealistic. The stats show that expecting someone to be monogamous all their life—especially that your very special snowflake marriage will be untouched by this thing that happens to almost all marriages—is unrealistic.” - Dan Savage
Dizzy from the Circular Logic
This is typically the first argument everyone makes in criticizing monogamy. It also makes me dizzy; the circular logic makes your head spin. This is a classic argument from consequences fallacy, where the principle is judged true or false based on its consequences rather than its intrinsic validity. According to this argument, because monogamy often leads to infidelity, it must be an inherently flawed or unnatural system. Of course, failure to live up to an ideal does not prove that the ideal itself is wrong—only that it is difficult. I submit that even if couples failed 100% of the time (instead of the 20% commonly reported), monogamy would still have value.
Those Impossible Virtues
As a Christian, I believe that I am called to support those in need. By the logic of this argument, altruism and philanthropy are not only ineffective, they are for suckers. Is honesty a good thing, or does it simply set us up for failure? I’m ashamed to admit that I have not always been as honest as I know I should be. Should I now feel relieved of my guilt because the inevitability of failure means the objective itself is invalid? (Are you getting dizzy too?)
That’s Convenient
Call me cynical, but this argument has the distinct odor of post hoc rationalization. People say, “Monogamy sets people up for failure,” only because they want a justification for breaking it. But we don’t extend this reasoning to other moral expectations. We don’t say, “Dieting sets people up for failure because they’ll eat junk food eventually, so we should stop trying to eat healthy.” We recognize that struggling and failing to resist the cake (or the Ozempic) is part of discipline, not a reason to discard it.
When You Assume, You Are Making an…
Is it really unrealistic? Granted, the data on how many gay marriages adopt monogamy versus other relationship models are inconclusive and largely unreliable. We should encourage social scientists to help answer this question. Indeed, the burden is yours to show me how unrealistic monogamy is, including for men. Moreover, should I be offended by the condescending notion that being gay makes one less capable of restraint?
Argument 2: “Monogamy fosters dishonesty and cheating, which is the real betrayal.”
“The infidelity we often see is less an act of moral failure and more the inevitable byproduct of a rigid system that forces people into secrecy about their genuine desires.”
“Treating monogamy, rather than honesty or joy or humor, as the main indicator of a successful marriage gives people unrealistic expectations… and that, Savage says, destroys more families than it saves.” - Dan Savage
I See What You Did There
Such a seductive reframing of the problem! "Cheating" is not the problem—monogamy is! Wait… is ‘cheating’ or cheating the problem? If we just redefine "cheating" to not include sex with others, then no one cheats! Well, yes—by definition, you’ve eliminated cheating, but you haven’t necessarily eliminated the issues that cheating causes, such as jealousy, emotional pain, erosion of trust, and catching that nasty bug.
When in Doubt, Blame the Rules
Isn’t this simply a more consequentialist version of the previous argument (“monogamy sets people up to fail”)? As a general rule, most of us try to escape consequences after breaking a rule. It’s not the student cheating on his test that is the problem—it’s those oppressive expectations of academic integrity that ultimately lead to deception. Let’s get really dizzy: Why should we even be upset when spouses lie to each other in the first place? It’s those unrealistic expectations of honesty that are to blame!
Monogamy Made Me Lie
I concede that the betrayal of infidelity is worsened by the cover-up and deception. However, I am not convinced that removing monogamy creates the solution this argument requires. It is equally probable that couples in open relationships have a variety of other barriers to being honest. Perhaps one partner consented to non-monogamy to preserve the union but fears that being truthful will only further alienate their partner. (Yes, you—the one with the wandering eye.)
And what about all those rules? Aren’t those rules simply slightly looser chains that create even more opportunities to violate trust and escape consequences? Consider, for a moment, that the exclusive focus and attention monogamy requires toward your spouse might actually make honesty not only more likely but more rewarding.
Argument 3: “Monogamy is an oppressive, patriarchal social construct—it is unnatural.”
“There is no biological imperative that mandates exclusivity in relationships; monogamy is a cultural construct designed to serve specific social functions rather than reflecting an inherent natural order.” -Dan Savage
All That Is Pure and Good Comes From Nature…?
Yet another fallacy—the naturalistic fallacy. Disease, violence, childhood cancer, and the Ebola virus? Natural. mRNA cancer therapies, democracy (pre-2025), iPhones, Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, philanthropy? Unnatural. In fact, most of what we understand to be civilization has been the process of either mitigating or channeling human nature (instincts, passions) toward positive ends.
The Liberation of Polygamy
Marriage has played many roles throughout history. In many of those roles, marriage has enabled male-dominated cultures and horrendous abuses toward women. However, monogamy was not the cause of women being relegated to a servile position. Misogyny predates the Western tradition of monogamous marriage. The most widely practiced alternative—polygamy—does, however, exist in large part for the purpose of subjugating women.
Polygamy resembles that natural state Savage valorizes, where alpha and beta males fight for as many female consorts as their sheer strength permits, leading to vast societal inequality, the virtual enslavement of women, and a world in which the majority of men are left with little to no prospects for a wife. Monogamy (as I will be discussing in a subsequent article) was an equalizing force in human history. Monogamy is unnatural and a social construct—but it is also infinitely more conducive to human dignity, equality, and social cohesion.
Argument 4: “Monogamy leads to boredom, kills passion, and breeds resentment.”
“People in monogamous relationships have to be willing to meet me a quarter of the way and acknowledge the drawbacks of monogamy—around boredom, despair, lack of variety, sexual death, and being taken for granted.” -Dan Savage
Sounds Like Someone Needs a Hug
Okay, Dan, I’ll meet you a quarter of the way and admit that monogamy can get boring. If you, however, meet me a quarter of the way and admit how whiny you sound. If your spouse begins to resent you for… not being someone else, that’s a bigger problem, completely separate from the limits imposed by monogamy. I’m sure that throuple you’re working on poses no risk of resentment…
A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Your argument assumes monogamy inevitably becomes boring and passionless. If you believe monogamy is dull, why would you invest in keeping it passionate? You’ll be pleased to learn that there is an abundance of research showing that long-term monogamous couples report some of the highest levels of satisfaction in their sex lives compared to others. Commitment creates emotional depth, security, and trust—which are actually the foundation of the best sex. Novelty fades quickly, but deepening intimacy and exploration within a committed relationship can sustain desire for a lifetime.
Argument 5: “Why do you prioritize sex when it comes to fidelity and commitment?”
“Marriage is supposed to be an all-encompassing covenant that goes far beyond the physical; reducing it to merely a sexual contract diminishes the deeper emotional and spiritual dimensions of a lifelong partnership.” —Andrew Sullivan
Who’s the One Prioritizing Sex?
This one always catches me off guard. We who defend monogamy may be a bit insecure about being perceived as unsexy prudes. To be accused of obsessing over sex is disorienting! But it is also a reminder that there is some truth to the argument; monogamy does prioritize sex as an integral part of commitment and fidelity. …As my sparring partner senses my hesitation and thinks now is his chance to deliver a final blow, I duck just in time and sweep him off the floor: “I am prioritizing sex - with the person I love. You are prioritizing sex - with everyone else.”
It’s Only Sex?
It is true that men have a unique capacity to have sex in the absence of any emotional connection. Those sexual encounters can be fun, entertaining, and satisfy a fleeting urge. If, however, we allow sex to be reduced to a mere instrument of physical pleasure, we risk losing the ability to develop and nurture a truly intimate connection—one that brings into alignment a deep emotional commitment with the sheer force of will that is our sexual desire.
To argue that sex is just a physical act—one of many expressions of love—is to reveal what you believe about intimacy. It is also disingenuous. If sex were truly just a minor part of marriage, why do couples in open marriages still set boundaries? Why do they negotiate who, when, how, and under what conditions their partners can have sex with others? Even among the most "sexually liberated" people, sex still means something. The fact that even non-monogamous relationships have to set sexual boundaries proves that sex cannot be reduced to one of many ways we show our love.
You See a Prison, I See Meaning
Critics see monogamy as denying desire. But that’s not right at all. Monogamy is about channeling desire into a single, deep, meaningful relationship. Monogamy does not reduce commitment to sexual exclusivity—it elevates it as the most intimate, vulnerable, and symbolic form of commitment.
Sexual fidelity is a discipline that sustains meaning. The very act of choosing one person over all others, every day, for life, is what makes a marriage more than just a contract—it makes it a covenant. There are many ways to show love and sacrifice in a marriage, but sex is the one act that physically and emotionally binds two people in a way nothing else does.
Being Difficult Is the Whole Point
The fundamental flaw in the arguments against monogamy is the assumption that difficulty and sacrifice are problems to be solved—rather than the very things that give relationships their meaning.
The act of choosing one person, again and again, in the face of temptation, difficulty, and imperfection, is what imbues marriage with depth and significance. A love that costs nothing, that asks nothing, that demands no sacrifice, is just another consumer transaction—not a lifelong commitment. If sex were just another “nice thing,” like cooking together or managing finances, then why does infidelity cause such devastation? We know instinctively that sexual fidelity is different—because it represents an embodied, physical commitment of love.
If we redefine commitment to exclude exclusivity, commitment itself becomes meaningless. At that point, what is left of marriage? Financial partnership? Emotional support? Those things are important, but they do not require marriage. Sacrifice imbues marriage with meaning, and the most personal sacrifice—the act of forsaking all others, in body and in heart—is what makes it profound.
The most meaningful commitments in life involve sacrifice and discipline. An Olympic athlete sacrifices leisure and undergoes grueling training to achieve excellence in their sport—and we applaud this dedication. An artist might sacrifice financial stability to focus on their craft, expressing a higher calling. A parent certainly sacrifices a great deal for their child out of love. In this context, the sacrifice of monogamy is the sacrifice of possibility (the myriad theoretical partners out in the world) for a reality (one actual beloved partner here and now). It’s saying “no” to millions of potential futures in order to wholeheartedly say “yes” to one. There’s something beautiful in that singularity of focus.
For same-sex couples, monogamy carries the added resonance of a promise fulfilled—the promise that our love is equal not only in rights but in responsibility and devotion. Marriage equality became the law of the land ten years ago because we came out of the closet to show our family, friends, coworkers, and neighbors that we wanted the same thing they did—to fall in love, start a family, and experience the seasons of life together, until death do us part. Now, it’s up to us to imbue those marriages with fidelity and devotion so that they flourish. By doing so, we affirm not only our love for one another but our respect for the institution that holds our vows.
Monogamy matters deeply to the individual couples who are transformed by it. It also holds promise for the LGBTQ community to be similarly transformed—to turn away from the hyper-individualism and relentless pursuit of novelty that risk sapping meaning and purpose from a drying well. But monogamy’s influence may be far more consequential than we recognize—a cornerstone in the development of modern civilization itself. Before blithely discarding what may look like a relic of the past, perhaps we should first fully understand why it has persisted as one of the most enduring institutions in human history.
Until next time.
