“Validly” Roman Catholic and Homosexual?: A Critique of the Malaysian Play “The Third Way: Same Sex Attraction and the Catholic Church”


During the Roman Catholic season of Lent,[1] the Parish Youth Council of Holy Family Church at the township of Kajang in the Malaysian state of Selangor organised a series of activities. One such activity was a Play entitled “The Third Way: Same Sex Attraction and the Catholic Church,” which was held on Sunday, March 22, 2015. There was no charge for the Play and it was open to all. Although scheduled to begin at 6.00 pm, the Play started at 6.30 pm with several speeches from the youth leaders.

Some 200 people turned up for the event which was held in the church building. The Play focused on a fictitious account of the life of a young Roman Catholic man who was struggling with homosexual tendencies. The actor who portrayed the main character narrated the various stages of his life throughout the Play. The church sanctuary was turned into a stage that depicted scenes from a Roman Catholic home, a bedroom, a classroom, a gay bar and the office of a parish priest. Lights were dimmed and youths propped up large bales of cloth during scene changes. The Play lasted for about an hour and 45 minutes.

A friend alerted me to an e-poster of this event which was advertised on a social network site. As I deliberated on whether I wanted to attend the Play, I decided to re-read the e-poster. There were several subheadings that read “Are you struggling with same sex attraction?,” “Do you know someone who is struggling with same sex attraction?” and “Or are you curious on what is the church’s stand on same sex attraction?” Admittedly, I was slightly taken aback at another subheading that read “Be ready to think, reflect and repent.” Some two years ago, I had attended a talk entitled “LGBT: What is our Response as Catholics?” at St Francis Xavier Church in Petaling Jaya, in the Malaysian state of Selangor. Then, the speaker had confused gay men with transgender women, and had canvassed for reparative therapy as a form of repentance from “a gay lifestyle” (Goh, 2013). I found myself wondering if this would be a repeat performance. Moreover, the fact that the Play was held at a church named after the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph made me slightly apprehensive. As the Holy Family is often upheld as the perfect model of heterosexual family life, I wondered if the venue was in itself a purposeful reinforcement of the “abnormality” and “sinfulness” of homosexual persons and expressions.[2] I decided to attend the Play for two reasons. First, I was interested to see if the rhetoric of the Roman Catholic Church in Malaysia towards homosexual persons had shifted. Second, I wanted a deeper comprehension of the stand of Roman Catholic authorities in Malaysia in relation to homosexual lives.

My reflections are structured around my interpretation of specific themes that emerged from the Play. These themes include stereotypes and assumptions of homosexual men, the official stand of the Roman Catholic Church on homosexuality, and a “third way” of being both Roman Catholic and homosexual.[3]

The Problem of Portrayal: Stereotypes and Assumptions

In describing the characteristics of his homosexual attraction, the main character spoke about his distaste for football and his fondness for poetry. He mentioned how he directed his attraction for men to gay-themed pornography, and his consequent engagement in masturbation. Although he did not explicitly mention if he made use of printed or online pornographic resources, the fact that he was depicted as staring at a laptop during this particular scene suggests that he was alluding to the latter. In another scene, the main character found himself chatting with another patron in a gay bar. The scene ended with both of them leaving together, which suggested that the main character and his newfound friend had decided to engage in casual sex.

I understand that descriptions of gender and sexuality almost always make use of popular and socially-acceptable images for men and women. As a “rough” sport, football is very often associated with men and “manly” interests. On the other hand, as poetry is often considered as gentler, softer and more emotional, it is often thought of as the “appropriate” domain of women. While it may well be true in some cases that football is more appealing to men than women, and that more women than men are inclined towards poetry, it cannot be taken as exclusive, definitive and overarching evidence of distinct gender preferences, traits and roles. To define homosexual men as loathing football and adulating poetry tends to perpetuate the idea that all homosexual men have a preference to engage in more “feminine” activities rather than “masculine” endeavours. It also tends to foster an impression that men who have homosexual tendencies are somehow “lesser men” because they have more “womanly” interests. I think that the portrayal of the main character as uninterested in football and passionate about poetry risks reinforcing stereotypical images of homosexual men as somehow less “manly,” and less “manly” men as homosexual.

Similarly, the act of associating homosexual men with gay-themed pornography, masturbation, gay bars and casual sex can also pose problems, as it overlooks the complexities that surround the lives of men who are trying to make sense of their attraction. While I can appreciate the difficulties that the Parish Youth Council must have undergone in trying to portray homosexual men, the reality is that homosexual men can never be easily and simplistically represented. The use of sport, poetry, pornography, gay bars and casual sex risks the danger of oversimplifying homosexual men. It presupposes that they can be identified as a “distinguishable species.” It reduces them to their recreational interests. It also assumes that all homosexual men possess an inordinate interest in sexual activity.

In a country like Malaysia where sexual topics are often considered as taboo (tan, 2007), many men and women often experience great difficulty in exploring and deepening their understanding of issues of sex and sexuality. This situation is even more pronounced for men and women who experience same-sex attractions. The unspoken socio-cultural assumptions that homosexual tendencies are somehow wrong, abnormal and sinful would deter many homosexual persons from openly, candidly and sincerely speaking about and seeking advice on such matters. I wonder if, in reality, the entire structure of homosexual silence sits on a greater culture of silence on issues regarding bodies, genders, sexualities and sexual acts in Malaysia.

Therefore, the internet, which provides easy access to all forms of information, would surely be a valuable resource for homosexual persons who would almost certainly find it daunting, if not impossible, to speak to their elders, peers or spiritual leaders. The main character’s recourse to gay-themed pornography must not be understood as “a gay thing.” It is not very different from men and women with other-sex attractions who use the internet to assuage their curiosity about their bodies and the bodies of others. Seeing as the Roman Catholic Church enjoys a sizeable following in Malaysia, I believe that it can play a very important role in facilitating frank and open discussions on bodies, genders, sexualities and sexual acts for people of all sexual orientations. Nevertheless, such labours can only come to fruition if these discussions take place in more critical space and perhaps even challenge the more “official” stand on such issues.

The Roman Catholic Church’s Official Stand on Homosexuality

There were a few scenes during the Play in which the main character could be heard asking his parents about the meaning of homosexual attraction. There were many more scenes in which the main character expressed his anguish in being bullied for being different, and his confusion over his inner struggles. He constantly questioned God on why he was not “like everyone else,” and admitted that pornography and masturbation served the purpose of replacing an emptiness and a sense of self-disgust that he was experiencing deep within himself. The main character also expressed his hatred for God and his parents for what he understood as a lack of acceptance of who he really was, particularly after a scene in which the parents of the main character spoke of sending him for counselling. I salute the efforts of the Parish Youth Council in portraying issues that are extremely true to life. Many homosexual men in Malaysia continue to experience misunderstanding, discrimination, ostracisation, prejudice, bullying and even violence. Furthermore, these men often find that they have nowhere to turn to for help.

I am grateful to the Parish Youth Council for clarifying a popular misconception that the Roman Catholic Church hates and condemns homosexual persons. In one scene, the main character’s father recalled Pope Francis’ pastoral attitude towards homosexual persons when the former said, “If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him?” (Francis, 2013). In another scene in which the main character was conversing with a priest, the latter explained that there is a distinction between homosexual attraction and homosexual expression. This distinction is based on a Roman Catholic document that admits to the complexity of homosexual tendencies and that homosexual persons should not be held responsible for their inclinations. At the same time, this document declares that homosexual actions can never be endorsed (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1975, sec. VIII). I have often asked why this misconception is so widespread. Could it be due to a lack of initiative and interest among many homosexual Roman Catholics to find out the actual facts? Or could it be the indication of a deeper and more complex situation? I wonder if this misconception actually belies an unspoken yet deeply felt belief on the part of homosexual Roman Catholics that the distinction between who they are and who they love is a false one? Could this misconception be a tacit rebuttal to the Roman Catholic Church’s official stand that it is possible to separate a person from his or her ability for connection, attraction and love?

The actor who portrayed the role of the priest also quoted extensively from the Catechism of the Catholic Church on homosexuality (John Paul II, 1997, sec. 2357).[4] The priest character spoke of the need to show compassion to homosexual persons. He talked about “natural law” in terms of gender complementarity, or the “natural” bonding of men and women in the Sacrament of Matrimony and the fruit of childbearing. He highlighted the scriptural basis of this gender complementarity by mentioning the Book of Genesis and St Paul’s letter to the Romans. The priest character referred to the conjugal act, or the sexual bonding, between men and women as a sacred and divine gift which reflects the inner life of the Divine Trinity. He described homosexuality as a psychological deviance from this “natural” order and as the consequence of a “fallen world.”

Although I appreciate the fidelity of this Play to the official stand of the Roman Catholic Church, I find myself experiencing some difficulties in trying to make sense of the explanations given. The use of “natural law” to argue against homosexual expressions can be traced back to the writings of St Thomas Aquinas. In his 13th century theological work entitled Summa Theologiae, which continues to command theological authority in many mainstream churches to this day, St Thomas speaks of “the vice of sodomy” (homosexual acts) as being contrary to eternal law, because such acts are performed without the possibility of offspring (Aquinas, II–II, Q. 154, 11). Yet, contemporary theologians insist that St Thomas’ condemnation was based on his personal conviction that all sexual activity must be directed towards childbearing, and that sexual activity for the sake of pleasure alone falls short of God’s will (Jordan, 1997). In other words, any kind of sexual activity which is not directed towards the conception of children is “unnatural.”

I believe it is important to note that St Thomas Aquinas was a man and a theologian of his specific historical and socio-cultural context. He could never have imagined contemporary LGBTIQ identities, organised advocacies and legal commitments among LGBTIQ persons.[5] It is an injustice to force St Thomas’ ideas on to these contemporary realities, and to equate these contemporary realities with ancient societies and ideas. In my opinion, there needs to be a more critical interpretation of “natural law.” Furthermore, not every person is called to married life or has the ability (or the desire) to bear children, and not every sexual act is consciously geared towards conceiving children. Similarly, I believe that the Bible cannot (and should not) be used against homosexual persons. First, the historical and socio-cultural contexts between then and now are markedly different. Second, any pronouncements that “the Bible says so” must be understood as a claim of the person who reads and interprets the Bible (often the English version) from his or her own perspective (which is often influenced by other uncritical perspectives), and without understanding that the Biblical texts are themselves often ambiguous.

I also feel uncomfortable with how homosexual acts are automatically portrayed as deviant, contrary to God, and the product of fallen human nature. Same-sex sexual activity, like other-sex sexual activity, can be ordered to both good and bad purposes. Both homosexual and non-homosexual men are capable of using sexual acts to bring about harm and goodness. I fail to see how a homosexual man who engages in same-sex sexual activity with another man in an atmosphere of love, kindness, respect, equality, mutuality and even commitment, can be automatically considered as engaging in sin. If God is love (1 John 4: 8), and human persons are to reflect God’s love in an all-embracing and indiscriminate way, would expressions of love that take place within the atmosphere I have just mentioned need to occur exclusively in other-sex relationships? This begs more questions. Is the idea of same-sex activity as sinful actually due to a socio-cultural discomfort with forms of connection and relationship that are unfamiliar and less common, and which are then attributed to God through church teachings? Could the insistence on other-sex unions and childbearing be an effort to uphold romanticised ideals of human relationships, even though we know that real human lives prove time and again to be much more complex and diverse than we usually think they are? Human persons do not all live up to religious ideals (and they really are just ideals), and they should not be forced to do so, or be made to feel bad because of their inability to do so. Neither should God be used to justify these ideals, and be made out to be the Outraged Ogre when human persons “fall short” of them.

I feel a little uneasy with the idea that homosexual persons should be shown compassion. On one hand, I can see how compassion can be interpreted as the denouncement of all forms of discrimination, stigmatisation and violence against homosexual persons. On the other hand, the idea of “compassion” can also sound a little condescending, as though homosexual persons are poor unfortunates who need to be shown compassion simply because their sexual attractions and activities are different from what society upholds as “normal” and “natural.” I believe that respect and equality are just as important as compassion—perhaps even more important. Compassion could suggest an imbalance in power relations, whereby those who show compassion are somehow “better” than those who are shown compassion. On the other hand, respect and equality suggest that dialogue can occur on equal footing between non-homosexual persons and homosexual persons who are or who we wish to be comfortable being who they are.

The Third Way of Being Roman Catholic and Homosexual

In the final scenes of the Play, the priest character described an acceptable “third way” of being both Roman Catholic and homosexual. The priest character began by explaining three ways of being Roman Catholic and homosexual. The first way was to remain as a “shamed, closeted gay.” The second way, he continued, was to come out openly, “live a gay lifestyle,” “hit the pubs,” take part in “Mardi Gras” and “fight for gay rights.” The third way was to live a life of chastity and purity. It is evident that the Parish Youth Council was guided by a sincere desire to exercise sensitivity and kindness to homosexual persons through this Play. These final scenes were undoubtedly an attempt to offer a way for homosexual men to lead lives of dignity, joy and peace. Nevertheless, I still find myself unable to shake off a sense of unease with some of the messages that were communicated through these final scenes.

For example, the idea of the first way explains that a closeted life, or a life in which a homosexual man does not publicly disclose his sexuality, is a life of shame. I believe that it would have been beneficial at this stage to ask why so many homosexual men feel the need to hide their sexuality from their families, friends and churches, rather than assume that they are living in shame due to their sexuality. This was a missed opportunity to discuss societal and religious expectations of gender and sexuality in Malaysia, and the struggles between ideals and actual lives. The second way defines the homosexual man’s act of coming out of the closet, or a public disclosure of his sexuality, as the act of living a gay lifestyle, hitting the pubs, taking part in Mardi Gras, and fighting for gay rights. The impression that I have is that the second way is somehow unacceptable and wrong, yet the reasons given are unclear, and filled with many stereotypes and inaccuracies.

For instance, the idea of “a gay lifestyle” is inaccurate on two counts. First, there are as many lifestyles as there are homosexual men. Second, there is a tacit presumption here that “a gay lifestyle” is solely connected to frivolity and promiscuity. This presumption disregards the struggles at work, the joys of friendship, the excitement of recreation, and the diverse everyday lives of homosexual men that are not very different from the diverse everyday lives of all Malaysians. The idea of coming out as “hitting the pubs” creates and reinforces the stereotype of homosexual men as excessive alcohol consumers. The claim of coming out as “taking part in Mardi Gras” overlooks the fact that not all Mardi Gras celebrations are homosexual events, that not all homosexual men are inclined towards dressing up in glitter or participating in parades, and that homosexual-themed Mardi Gras parades are disallowed in Malaysia. Finally, not all homosexual men who are open about their sexuality participate in the fight for gay rights. I am not sure why fighting for gay rights appears as unacceptable and wrong, when the struggle for gay rights is really the right for one to be oneself and to express oneself as a human being. In fighting for gay rights, homosexual persons are not fighting for extraordinary or additional rights. They are fighting for the right to be unconditionally recognised and accepted for who they are.

The only acceptable and right way, as the priest character mentioned, was for homosexual men to embrace lives of chastity and purity. When the main character asked if chastity meant not having sex, the priest character drew a distinction between chastity, which is expected of Roman Catholics in all walks of life, and celibacy, which is a promise taken by Roman Catholic priests. He added that a homosexual orientation cannot be an identity, as a person’s only identity is being a child of God. The priest character also mentioned that if a homosexual man were to fall in love with another man, each bears the responsibility of loving the other in chastity and purity. Both men are to help each other “carry this trial.” These lines were taken almost verbatim from the Catechism (John Paul II, 1997, sec. 2358–2359).

Although the priest character had mentioned a difference between chastity and celibacy, the fact remains that the Roman Catholic Church expects chastity in the form of celibacy from homosexual persons. I find it ironic that while the Roman Catholic Church does not condemn homosexual identities, the prohibition of sexual expressions for homosexual men and the insistence on a celibate life is in itself another form of condemnation. This prohibition is an act of condemning homosexual men to a life that is devoid of sexual, physical affection. For me, this situation is unjust, because it carries the message that homosexual men are “valid” in the eyes of God and the Church only if they stay away from sexual activity. This prohibition overlooks the fact that not all homosexual men are called to a life of celibacy. It denies the fact that homosexual men are capable of relationships that are based on love, kindness, respect, equality, mutuality and commitment. To demand celibacy from homosexual men who are not called to celibacy is to tell them that it is alright to be homosexual while robbing them of a fundamental feature of their God-given humanness at the same time.

The main character declared that he had sinned to such a degree that God could not possibly forgive him. The priest character responded that “where sin increases, grace abounds more.” He told the main character that God loved him just the way he was, yet loved him too much to see him remain where he was. I felt uncomfortable with the mention of sin at this point. I asked myself several questions. Did the idea of sin lie in the destructive choices that the main character made in his life as a man who happened to be homosexual, or did the idea of sin lie simply in being a homosexual man? What was it about the homosexual man that God loved “just the way he was?” What was it about the homosexual man that God loved too much to allow for him to remain where he was? The boundaries between a homosexual identity and homosexual expressions blurred for me, because the main character appeared to be steeped in sin as a consequence of expressing himself as a homosexual man. My impression of the dialogue between the two characters is that there was no difference in assigning sin to both identity and expression. The main character was sinful because he expressed himself, and he in turn expressed himself in a particular way because of his identity.

I wonder if this is really a condemnation of a homosexual man’s identity, even though the Roman Catholic Church tries to provide a distinction between identity and expression? Furthermore, is this distinction not a method of selective acceptance of God’s people? Is this selective acceptance not a form of judgement, in which the sexual expressions of some are judged as valid, while the sexual expressions of others are judged as invalid? Is the identity of a homosexual man not a deep sense of his personhood, an important part of who he really is? Do the constructive and destructive choices we make in life not emerge from the depths of our personhood? Do we not act from the depths of who we are? Why are the sexual expressions of a homosexual man automatically sinful yet his homosexual identity remains a neutral feature, when his expressions are in fact steered by his identity? Why is a full acceptance of being homosexual a “sin,” and to abstain from homosexual expressions a moment where “grace abounds more?” Why can grace not abound more when a homosexual man accepts himself unconditionally? Why can grace not abound more when a Church accepts a homosexual man unconditionally?

The priest character suggested that the main character join a support group for those with same-sex attraction, as this support group could help him through moments of loneliness, and prevent pornographic dependency and masturbation. The Play ended on a triumphalistic tone as the main character declared that he was finally leading a “masculine pure life” without sex and men. The main character proclaimed that he was not “gay.” Instead, he was “a Catholic, and most of all, a child of God.” God, who alone deserved his longings and desires, had used his “sexual brokenness” to bring him to God, as God had a plan for him.

Again, I am uneasy with the rationale behind these messages. The suggestion for the main character to join a support group implies that being a homosexual man is similar to being a person who is dependent on alcohol or drugs. It also paints homosexuality as a disease, an undesirable condition which can be controlled and brought to remission, even if it cannot be cured. I see this as a very subtle form of judgement against homosexual men. I feel uncomfortable with the implication that a homosexual man can only be truly “masculine” and “pure” if he denies his capacity for intimacy with another man, or if he “gives up” his identity as a homosexual man. In a world where each human person bears multiple identities according to his or her circumstances, I feel that the “giving up” of a “gay identity” in favour of both Catholic and “child of God” identities is illogical. More importantly, why is it that a heterosexual man can hold multiple identities as man, heterosexual, Catholic, a child of God, a husband, a father, an employer or employee, while a homosexual man must deny his sexuality and reduce his identity to being Catholic and a child of God? Why can a homosexual man not hold multiple identities as man, homosexual, Catholic, a child of God, and other identities that are dear to him? Moreover, I find the use of the term “sexual brokenness” unclear. Is brokenness a result of destructive choices that the main character made in his life as a man who happened to be homosexual, or is brokenness simply a consequence of being a homosexual man who is true to his sexuality? If it is the latter, how does being a homosexual man who is true to his sexuality automatically translate into sexual brokenness? Despite what the Roman Catholic Church declares in terms of compassion and kindness, does it in actual fact see homosexual men as abnormal?

Lastly, I am troubled by how God is portrayed during the dialogue in the final scenes. God stands in as the Ultimate Substitute for a man towards whom a celibate homosexual man could potentially show love and intimacy. In a sense, God becomes the Phantom Lover of a celibate homosexual man in order to ensure that the latter remains “chaste,” “pure” and thus “acceptable” and “valid” as a Roman Catholic homosexual man. In non-homosexual arrangements, God is considered as the third party that binds two people together as “Christ dwells with them” (John Paul II, 1997, sec. 1642). God never acts as a Substitute Spouse who lays absolute claim to all the “longings and desires” of a non-homosexual man or a woman. Why does God now appear as the Romantic Gap-Filler in the life of a homosexual man upon whom the law of celibacy has been imposed? Why can God not be understood instead as the Initiator of Attraction, Love and Intimacy between two men? Why does “God’s plan” for the main character consist solely of a life of celibacy? Can “God’s plan” not take the form of attraction or a loving relationship, in whatever form it takes, between two men? Again, I am inclined to think that the prohibition of sexual expression for homosexual men is a form of condemnation, judgement and control. This prohibition goes against Pope Francis’ idea that one must respect and refrain from judging homosexual persons of good will who search for God. This prohibition attempts to “play God” to those whose lives actually belong in the hands of God.


In this reflection, I have discussed the stereotypes and assumptions surrounding homosexual men. I have also looked at a culture of silence surrounding issues of bodies, genders, sexualities and sexual acts in Malaysian societies, including Roman Catholic communities. I have described St Thomas Aquinas’ comment on homosexuality in terms of his own historical context. I have mentioned the inappropriateness of applying ancient contexts to contemporary realities, and of reading contemporary realities back into ancient contexts. I have pointed out some problems, stereotypes and inaccuracies in the first, second and third ways of being both Roman Catholic and homosexual. I have shown how the Play, “The Third Way: Same Sex Attraction and the Catholic Church” has, in several instances, oversimplified the complex lives of homosexual men.

At the same time, I have applauded the Parish Youth Council of Holy Family Parish, Kajang, for their courageous effort to discuss issues of same-sex attraction through this Play. It is evident that these efforts come from a place of kindness, honesty, sincerity and non-judgement. Nevertheless, on more than one occasion, I have suggested that the Roman Catholic Church take up the responsibility of facilitating safe, open, sincere and frank avenues for discussions on bodies, genders, sexualities and sexual acts. An important consideration is that attempts to talk about homosexual persons must involve homosexual persons themselves. These discussions must take as their starting point the views, insights and lived experiences of homosexual persons, rather than the official stand of the Roman Catholic Church on homosexuality. A real dialogue can only occur when both the Church and homosexual persons are able to converse with each other on equal terms. I believe that if the Parish Youth Council had been given the opportunity to approach and discuss issues of homosexual identities and expressions without the structural limitations, preconceived ideas and judgements that have been set in place, it could have brought these discussions to unprecedented heights of unconditional acceptance and love. I also believe that there is a lot of potential for the Parish Youth Council to see, understand, feel and speak in accordance with God’s own unsurpassed and unrestrained spirit of love. I remain hopeful and prayerful for the future.


[1] A period of self-discipline and active engagement in acts of charity leading up to Easter Sunday.

[2] During the Play, the terms “homosexual” and “gay” were used interchangeably, as were the terms “same-sex attraction” and “homosexuality.” Nevertheless, as “homosexual” and “homosexuality” were used with greater frequency, and as these terms are used in a vast number of Roman Catholic documents, they will appear with greater regularity in this reflection.

[3] While I am aware of other persons who are marginalised due to gender variance and sexuality diversity, such as lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex, pansexual and asexual persons, I do not mention them here explicitly, as the Play only focused on issues of same-sex attraction in terms of homosexual men. Nevertheless, many issues that homosexual men face would also be shared by these other persons.

[4] The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a compilation of the official tenets of the Roman Catholic faith which was promulgated by Pope John Paul II, and covers a wide variety of issues in relation to God and various dimensions of the human person’s relationship with God.

[5] LGBTIQ is an acronym for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer persons.


Aquinas, T. Summa Theologiae.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (1975, December 29). Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics.

Goh, J. N. (2013, November 16). Repent or Believe in the Closet: When Pastoral Care is Anything But.

John Paul II. (1997). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed (E-Book)). Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

Jordan, M. D. (1997). The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Francis. (2013, July 28). Press Conference of Pope Francis during the Return Flight. Apostolic Journey to Rio de Janeiro on the Occasion of the XXVII World Youth Day.

tan, b. h. (2007). Time’s Up! Moving Sexuality Rights in Malaysia into the New Millennium.


Joseph N. Goh is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Gender, Sexuality and Theology with the School of Arts and Social Sciences at Monash University, Malaysia. He holds a Licentiate in Sacred Theology (S.T.L.) from the Jesuit School of Theology of Santa Clara University in Berkeley, CA. An ordained minister with the North American Catholic Ecumenical Church (NACEC), Goh is also a member of the Emerging Queer Asian Pacific Islander Religion Scholars (EQARS) and the editor of the Queer Asian Spirit E-Magazine (QAS E-Zine). Website: http://josephgoh.org.

Copyright © 2015 Joseph N. Goh. All Rights Reserved.