The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage in Canada: Law and Policy Considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper was presented at the conference: The Future of Same-Sex Marriage Claims: The Third Generation and Beyond, held at J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University. The author explores the legal and policy related reasons behind the same-sex marriage debate. She explores the chronology of events and the key legal developments that have paved the way for the same-sex marriage debate; explains why Canadian society is now facing the same-sex marriage debate by exploring the legal institutions of Canadian society; and reviews two approaches to same-sex-marriage in Canada and critiques their philosophical basis by suggesting that the proponents of same-sex marriage offer no workable philosophy as a foundation for that legal system. The author concludes by presenting five main arguments against redefining marriage: (1) Marriage and same-sex partnerships are so radically different that to treat them the same would mean distorting the authentic meaning of human dignity and the very notion of marriage. Such redefinition would also distort the authentic meaning of equality.; (2) offend the dignity of children; and (3) overlook scientific evidence essential to protecting the rights of children; (4) undermine the importance of the natural family; and (5) disturb the Canadian social order.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".