HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION: EVOLVING REFLECTIONS A Submission to the Anglican Church of Canada's Commission on the Marriage Canon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
My original intent in writing this paper is primarily two fold. First to review the development within the Anglican Communion and the Anglican Church of Canada of the traditional thinking regarding same-sex relationships. Second, since Anglican theology has relied on Scripture, Tradition and Reason, to study the scriptural foundation of the position taken by various biblical scholars on the issue and to apply reason to this issue in order to develop further my own thinking on this issue. Subsequently in July 6, 2013 the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada voted to bring to its next meeting in 2016 a resolution changing the church’s law to allow same-sex marriage. A Commission on the Marriage Canon was established. The Commission has invited submissions from interested parties. I am therefore submitting this paper to the Commission. I am especially indebted to the book, The Anglican Communion And Homosexuality: A Resource To Enable Listening And Dialogue (2008), edited by Philip Groves, published at the request of the Primates of the Anglican Communion. Its excellent list of references allowed me to read many of the original papers by scholars referred to in the book. Many of those papers are available online. My Orientation My evolving perspective with respect to this issue reflects my background as a Canadian Anglican
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.049 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".