"I don't know, I think character is a really important trait. If someone is a womanizer and consistently breaks his commitment to his spouse, why should we believe that he will deal any differently with us? One is to have the most intimate, enduring, unbreakable commitment to his spouse, and if this person considers such an intimate connection worthless, why would he place any value on your professional relationship?"
From what I can tell, this seems to be a common way of thinking in the US, especially in politics. Much less so in Europe (and maybe other parts of the world, I don't know). Personally, I don't see the connection between a person's romantic affairs, and their political decisions... one involves raging hormones, the other (hopefully) does not, so the decision making process is likely very different. (One could say, there are different body parts involved in the decision making... :-)
And what happens when things align such that sexual incentives occur which are contrary to relevant covenants? If we can't trust a politician to be loyal to his wife when faced with another attractive woman, why should we trust him to be loyal to political or employment covenants, by all accounts much less intimate and involved than a marriage covenant, if such a condition was presented?
For instance, if a company promises lots of pre-paid escort time in exchange for a given change to a given bill, why should we expect that an adulterer would be any more loyal to the right regarding the political establishment than his own wife and family?
And the reality is that these people don't even need an explicit sexual offer to betray their associates, there are many other bribes that appeal to the same basic desires (like money, power, status, etc.) that can be exploited to the same ultimate end.
An adulterer is a proven liability. Why should we trust him and invest a bunch of time and money and trust and secrets into him, only to betrayed when an adversarial entity lures him with money and sex? Obviously repentant people should be given another chance at some point, but I would never trust a known adulterer that wasn't completely repentant.
From what I can tell, this seems to be a common way of thinking in the US, especially in politics. Much less so in Europe (and maybe other parts of the world, I don't know). Personally, I don't see the connection between a person's romantic affairs, and their political decisions... one involves raging hormones, the other (hopefully) does not, so the decision making process is likely very different. (One could say, there are different body parts involved in the decision making... :-)