La contradicción en la improcedencia de la adopción homoparental
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the approval of same-sex marriage, by sentence of the Constitutional Court No. 11-18-CN/19, a problem arises regarding the related rights inherent to the solemn pact between spouses. One of them is adoption, which is expressly defined for opposite-sex couples in the constitutional norm. This research seeks to analyze the inadmissibility and denial of access to adoption for same-sex couples on the requirement imposed by law to the applicants to be heterosexual, which generates a contradiction in Articles 67 and 68 of the Constitution, as well as in some articles of the Code of Childhood and Adolescence and the Civil Code. Throughout this research, the main aspects of same-sex parenting, the perspective of the child as a subject of rights, the theory of adoption as a false right, and the suitability of same-sex adopters were detailed. In addition, a conceptual framework with the most relevant terms was developed, and the legal and jurisprudential aspects were reviewed. The methodology used a predominantly qualitative approach based on a non-experimental, exploratory, descriptive, cross-sectional or transversal design. It is concluded that such a contradiction does exist to impose a moralistic criterion above the superior principles of the child. This criterion deviates from legal exegetics by conceiving adoption as a mere formality and not as an authentic right of minors to have parent figures that contribute to their holistic development.
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 | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".