So apparently he was not a homosexual after all. I am not sure why I always associated that with him. Well, that and atheism.
He admitted to being bisexual or dabbling in his Oxford days, however, this really has nothing to do with his cancer at all. Frankly it was a rather offensive suggestion.
Well, I am sorry you were offended, but some folks are aware of the dirty little secret of a certain group that would like everybody to believe everything is fine when everything is really not. It's just a matter of time before that dirty little secret is out of the closet, so to speak. The drugs only work for so long (and there will never be a cure). Contrary to popular myth, it's not like taking insulin for diabetes.
Which dirty secret is out of what closet? That AIDS is more prevalent in the gay population than even the gay population is aware? I think that cat's been out of the bag for coming on three decades now.
It's more than just that. It's spreading like wildfire again, but either nobody knows or nobody cares. The whole prevalence, even the whole threat of the virus itself, is kept hush-hush by drugs that people think have taken care of the problem. But those drugs will only work for so long. Eventually the drugs will stop working and then what? How many people are going to needlessly end up dying this time around? I bring up the subject in a roundabout, soft way and get labelled a bigot for doing so. No wonder nobody wants to talk about what is happening.
Your logic and phrasing is ridiculous. Someone dies of cancer=AIDS=must be all that gay sex is the first thing that you post without apparently even knowing if he was gay or not.
You then proceed to speak of "a certain group" with a "dirty little secret'- why not just spell it out. Why create an us versus them allusion?
He died of pneumonia associated with an uncommon form of cancer. This is extremely common among AIDS victims.
There's obviously no us versus them, it's a matter of life or death (NOT a partisan issue), and it is too bad you inferred that, but I figured that would happen no matter how I tried to broach the subject. There really is no way of kindly describing it but as a dirty little secret. It is maddening.
Anyway, I am done with this. Whenever I even attempt to bring up this subject, nobody wants to hear about it, but especially those who are most at risk.
You don't know jack sh-t.
I'm gay. I know about HIV/AIDS, I'm tested regularly, I'm involved in the promotion of gay mens health. HIV/AIDS is a risk to
everyone,
EVERYONE and you would be suprised, very suprised at the amount of straights who don't think any of the preventative measures applys to them
But you know what really gets me, don't you know
his father died of the same cancer!
Anyway, I don't think R.I.P would be appropriate for Christopher. He know's that this it. His legacy is his work, his thoughts and the way he encouraged people to think. I admired Hitchens a great great deal. People often complained he was too 'agressive'; yeah he was forceful, but why shouldn't he be? Why should only people with faith be allowed to be passionate or to 'evangelise'? I won't forget watching him disarm the faithful in debate after debate. He made the same points time and time again because no one ever disproved them. He made the same points that the Stoics, the Greeks, the Enlightenment thinkers made for as long as man has argued about god and that encouraged me to read them for myself.
Thank you Christopher.
