The topic title stated above might imply to the readers that the narrator is closed-minded or dogmatic about something but does not want further elaboration for whatever causes, while implying that the listener to the narrator or reader of the narrator's writing should already know enough about "where [the narrator] is going" to end dwelling on the intended subject matter and cease pursuing further communication (especially from questioning listeners or readers imposing refractory controversial, conflicting, or contrary replies).

Case in point:

The word "animal" is not at all synonymous with the words "dog" or "cat." Even more so, the precise English words "poopy dog" or "purring cat" are NOT exactly the same words as the broad word: "animal." There are animals which are neither poopy dogs or purring cats, and not even dogs or cats per se, and being that neither the word "poopiness" nor the word "purring" mean exactly the same NOR relates to ALL animals of every kind on planet Earth.

'Nuf said.

Along those lines of thinking, it is inappropriate misuse of semantics (to say the least) to state the phrase: opposite-SEX marriage.

The two differently-spelled English words (i.e. "sex" and "marriage") not only are comprised of different English alphabet letters, but they obviously mean VERY DIFFERENT things compared to each other.

For one thing, sex and marriage are NOT synonymous because one can be married without having sex, and one can have sex without being married.

Even more than that (and here is a CRUCIAL problem): the word "sex" definitely does not have the exact same meaning as the TOTALLY-different word: gender. The word gender of course involves the concept of either being male or instead female . . . whereas "sex" and the multi-varied multi-faceted scope of it's actual meaning is a much broader word which not merely goes way beyond the English word "gender" but even has nothing to do with it as it stands alone.

It is like mis-equating the English word "metal" with the words "Chevrolet" or "Ford." True, Chevrolet and Ford consist largely of metal, but metal certainly is fashioned in many OTHER forms totally NON-related to automobiles.

Concordantly, the phrase same-SEX "marriage" is ridiculously-inappropriate semantics for the same cause that opposite-SEX marriage is wrong use of words, on two counts:

(1) No where in the entirety of the Sacred-66-Books Judeo-Christian Old-and-New-Testaments HOLY BIBLE is the word "marriage" (nor the word wedding for that matter) EVER used to describe a sexual union of same-gender couples, and

(2) the word sex is NOT synonymous with the word gender WHATSOEVER, because - again - "gender" intrinsically involves differentiation regarding the concept of male in contrast to female, whereas the word "sex" does NOT differentiate between the concept of male nor male -- even though both males and females can do sex alone by masturbational self-manipulation with their own hands or using whatever male or female animate or inanimate objects, with each other, or with multiple partners of whatever genders, or with animals of whatever gender.

To conclude dealing with this subject, proper semantics must become part of everyday American dialogue and discussion, keeping in mind that:

Opposite-GENDER (not"sex") couples can be and frequently are married, but same-GENDER (not "sex") couples are unionized (NOT "married") by quasi-illegal [ not quasi-"legal"] government licensing (not "marriage").

In other words, there is no such thing as same-"sex" "marriage" but there is instead same-GENDER unionizing.

On to another topic.

Often, anti-church hypocritical-themselves heretics (who hypocritically question the Law yet hypocritically obey it to avoid police arrest or to selfishly obtain employment or political positionings or for worst-timing deceptive destruction against the innocent) question, criticize, and judgmentally condemn what is contained in The Holy Bible as being too "simplistic" -- reviling it with the injust remark of it being "childish" and "inadequate" -- while genuine Christian saints would instead praise and laud it as fortunately and thankfully being "child-like" in both sufficient amount and details of information presented.

The blasphemous false charge of "childishly simplistic" by apostate infidels is clearly a moot and erroneous objection, especially for mindless non-thinkers who repetitiously blatter on with the non-defined and imprecise semantics of a noxious and confusing "whatchamicallit" or "thigamijig" every so often.

How much detail do they demand of limited-content Scripture of both the Old and New Testament? If the details of the how and where and why and who of everything briefly-enough referenced in the entire of the Bible were extended ad infinitum, all the hard drives and flash drives of every computer in the entire world could not contain the overwhelming amount of detailed information.

We typical everyday humans do not want THAT much detail in our busy and full-scheduled lives. It is sufficient for us to glance at a street sign reading "35" to understand and adjust our vehicle speed without the sign (in small print) adding the "miles per hour" wording plus going into a long and extensive rant on what a "mile" is, what an "hour" is, who invented both of them, when they invented them, why they invented them, and a listing of cop-and-court consequences if such speed signs are disregarded.

It is not necessary to know how long the Lord took each day of Creation Week to create whatever the Text states that He created on that day. It is not necessary to know when or what times of day He did whatever He did each day. It is not necessary to know added or speculated details about the contents of Scripture which have no need to be printed or speculated in Scripture itself.

That applies especially to creationism versus evolution.

Who says that stalactites and stalagmites took "millions of years" to "drip into current formations" in caves? Do the disbelieving not understand the almost-indescribably weird and phenomenally-unusual effects of Noah's Earth-rupturing raging-waters worldwide flood and bizarre upheavals, runoffs plus immediate ice-age-temperature alterations and violently-hostile weather changes from such?

Who says that stars apparently billions of light-years distant had to have had light from those apparent star sources take billions of years of travel in space to finally reach us? Could not God create what appears to be en-route starlight from apparently-distant stars, or is it "deceptive" on God's part that there is both enroute urine in the bladder besides source urine simultaneously produced and residing in the kidneys? Is not urine flow a continuum? For a blood test, is it necessary to get blood directly from the bone marrow itself, instead of from enroute-to-heart blood in some vein? Was non-born non-spermicidally-conceived Adam formed in non-intertwined parts (a hand here, a navel? there, an earlobe here, a toenail there) -- all in non-integrated separate pieces haphazardly at random and not united together into a completely operational, working and functioning overall unit, all at once?

Who says that the huge gullies of the Grand Canyon had to have happened over tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years or longer time? Have we not seen the landscape-twisting power of a sudden flood or earthquake devastating some city or town? Who says that God could not fetch skins of animals who died at or soon after the moment Eve ate her first bite of the Forbidden Fruit, which disobedient Eve thus started the suddenly-polluted, never-before-disrupted, never-previously-misaligned, unprecedentedly-then-mis-proportioned deterioration of everything not merely on planet Earth but even throughout the entire Universe (a little goes a long way in eventual massive effects)-- which Earth and Universe stupid-Eve-then-accommodating-God promptly subjected to universal-punishment against Eve (and Eve-like-sinner-progenie) who were (and yet are) at fault for polluting and mis-aligning everything of and around Eve (and her human offspring) -- the totality of her environment (both terrestrial and celestial) -- a woefully-and-despicably sin-defiled environment destined to eventually be completely subjected to and terminated by colossal cataclysmic fiery annihilation?

So, getting back to the thankfully and adequately-simple-yet-complex-enough things like what is contained in the Bible . . .

MUST you or I know exactly how our toasters or thermostats work, the long Latin names of every specie of each and every lifeform on the entire planet, all the complex mathematical formulas of scientific equations involving laws of nature, all exact details of all electronic parts and circuitry which make our cellphones operate, the complete litany of the jots and tittles of machine language in the Windows 98SE operating system? All the second-by-second intricate and complete details of your neighbor's personal life from birth to present? An intricate and exhaustive visual discovery and cataloging and verbal and written time-and-space description of every grain of seashore sand AND every single snowflake AND every blade of grass on Earth? Would you tolerate me relaying all that info to you in one sitting, without allowing you to nocturnally slumber nor visit the lavatory at various intervals while so lecturing you?

I, for one, do not want the Bible as we have it to expand into further details other than what is already contained therein. I have enough to do during the day, and can only read for so long before I get tired of it and have to go and do other things.

No one is in any position of authority to demand that the Holy Spirit inspires anyone to add more than what is already contained within Holy Writ.

Nor do I want speed signs on the road to go into causing-a-public-safety-hazard minute details, nor stoplights at intersections explain themselves as to the when, how, why, who, and a lot more of beyond-"need-to-know" particulars. If I want to specialize in something and get nitpicky with intricate details, that is my problem, which you the reader should not be required to either participate in nor have to do yourselves.

And vice versa.

In conclusion, when we read the following verses in Revelation:

Revelation 2:18 And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: `These things says the Son of God, who has His eyes like to a flame of fire, and His feet are like brazing brass:
19 I know your works, and love and service, and faith and your patience, and that your last works be more than the first.
20 However, I have a few things against you, because you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a clergyman, to teach and to seduce My servants to commit [ indecently-hairstyled/mopheaded and/or sleevesless and/or slacksless and/or soxless-incited? ] fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to [ immodestly-pornographic? ] idols.
21 And I gave her time to repent of her fornication, and she repented not.
22 Hey, I will throw her into a bed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their misdeeds.
23 And I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the thoughts and hearts; and I will give to every one of you according to your works.

. . . it is neither necessary nor advisable to guess who all "Jezebel" signified and/or perhaps-yet signifies, NOR actually insert the new words: indecently-hairstyled/mopheaded and/or sleevesless and/or slacksless and/or soxless-incited nor immodestly-pornographic in The Text itself -- although elaboration and applications in sermons and essays can reasonably be made as to targeting specific deviant inferior gender who have been or are now immodestly or insubordinately selfishly flaunting themselves for the sake of rebelliously and egocentrically delving in sexist-feminist and/or semi-porno-modelling "deep things of Satan" to the miserable and pathetic demise of themselves along with others mis-influenced by them.

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong to the LORD our God; but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Deuteronomy 30:11 For this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you, neither is it far off.

Ecclesiastes 8:17 then I saw all the work of God, that man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun. However much man may labor in seeking, he will not find it out; even though a wise man claims to know, he cannot find it out.
Ecclesiastes 11:5 As you do not know how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child [ NOT "fetus"] , so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.

Ecclesiastes 12:12 My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

First Corinthians 2:2 For I decided to know nothing among you, except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. First Corinthians 13:12 For now we see in a glass dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.

Second Corinthians 1:13 For we write you nothing but what you can read and understand; I hope you will understand fully.

First John 2:20 But y'all have an unction from the Holy One, and y'all know all things.