steepholm (steepholm) wrote,

Lust in Translation?

Well, that makes things so much clearer! Apparently the Pope has now said that condoms are acceptable in some circumstances, where they are being used simply to prevent the spread of infection rather than as a contraceptive. The example he gave, speaking in German, was that of a male prostitute. However, his words are being published in Italian, where the word for 'prostitute' is feminine - or so said Lavinia Byrne on R4 this morning.

So where does that leave people - such as female prostitutes, say - who may be using condoms in order to prevent infection, but might also be preventing conception as as a side-effect? Is that okay, or not? It doesn't help that the whole discussion takes place under a big umbrella condemnation of prostitution in and of itself. If anyone can explain what the Pope's position actually is, I'd be interested to hear it.

Meanwhile, the UN has removed being gay from the list of unacceptable reasons to execute people. What price the Charter of Human Rights now?

Oh, and Vince Cable has now declared that he and the other LibDems who signed a pledge reading "I PLEDGE TO VOTE AGAINST ANY INCREASE IN FEES IN THE NEXT PARLIAMENT", and who are now, in the next parliament, planning to vote for an increase in fees, did not break a promise because, and I quote:

"We are not just those persons, which we were.
And, oaths made in reverential fear
Of Voters, and their wrath, any may forswear.
And, as true deaths, true marriages untie,
So LibDems’ contracts, images of those,
Bind but till coalition, death’s image, them unloose.
And having purposed change, and falsehood, we
Can have no way but falsehood to be true."

"Vain lunatic" just about covers it.
Tags: current affairs
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded