Ssa And Recognizing Marriages

[Questing Beast]

Got it... Straight couples = holy, righteous, broken-hearted. Gay couples = solely succumbing to their carnal passions.

In the proverbial nutshell, yes, if that's as far as we get to go with your comparison (but it's of course much more nuanced than that, but you're regressing into a sulk). As eloquently said above, selfishness leads to corruption, every time. Outwardly it may look like something less than corruption, but inwardly it is selfishness, even rebellion. But making a point with me, humanity, is not the same as making it with "God". To assert that "God" is reserving homosexuals as his special exception to over six thousand years of recorded behavior before "God", is hubris of the highest sort....

Edited August 30, 2013 by Questing Beast

[rockpond]

You're not going deep enough.

The root of all sin is selfishness, and selfishness and narcissism go hand in hand. D&C 132 talks about the principle of beoming enlarged. This is accomplished by two complimentary souls becoming one flesh. If we are to be as Adam and Eve, an Adam-Adam pairing is not being enlarged. It is just more of the same. To be willing to have only more of yourself while there is another (your compliment Adam or Eve that needs you) is both selfish and narcissistic. This is true for so many other sins as well where those who need you are denied blessings because you seek to gratify yourself.

Since Adam and Eve provide the eternal pattern, the Lord’s dealings with and commands to them are His dealings with and commands to us, quite personally. We really cannot claim to be any different than Adam and Eve, or rightfully have any different options and choices than they did. This may make us seem very ordinary, but I think that's the point when it comes to eternal principles that we all have in common. But since this world is a place of testing, we all are tempted to seek to be extraordinary and exceptions from the pattern of Adam and Eve. That is he nature of fallen beings. Same-sex union is just one of countless ways to do so.

This is why same-sex unions are not an eternal principle and therefore a false hope.

The greater consolation in all this is that Adam is Everyman. For the sake of your concerns, no one knows his sexuality, or where he and Eve fell on the scale of sexual orientation. There are as many points on this scale as there are children of God. Neither do we know how compatible they were, and that is their business. The beauty is that they could be anyone, with any set of characteristics. Yet the commandments and the blessings are the same.

As wonderful as they are, romantic and sexual love and expression are not the be-all / end-all. Some may find this to be the case, but that can be said about any other kind of love that is limited in focus and scope. There is an overarching love that is more powerful than any all other kinds and manifestations. This is where God is leading us with the commandments and covenants; the plan of happiness. The powers of procreation are in all people of all orientations (even asexual!) and they can be harnessed for God's purposes and glory to brring the maximal joy, eternally. Personal orientation fundamentally does not matter because the pure love of Christ supercedes all that. This is why and how God would not create anyone that cannot abide His commands and covenants. He loves us that way.

Now anyone that decides that something different than what God wants is better is ultimately selfish and narcisstic to that same degree. Some other adjective may be more palatable, but it is not godly.

Only corruption and dependency of some kind or another can make one's procreative powers so dependent on external factors, objects of desire, other people, etc. outside of the commandments of God. That is what fallen people do with regards to sexual sin and why we have a Savior.

Well, if the account of Adam and Eve is supposed to be taken in the strictest sense as the only possible union acceptable to God, then plural marriage is wrong and Section 132 is apocryphal.

[rockpond]

In the proverbial nutshell, yes, if that's as far as we get to go with your comparison (but it's of course much more nuanced than that, but you're regressing into a sulk). As eloquently said above, selfishness leads to corruption, every time. Outwardly it may look like something less than corruption, but inwardly it is selfishness, even rebellion. But making a point with me, humanity, is not the same as making it with "God". To assert that "God" is reserving homosexuals as his special exception to over six thousand years of recorded behavior before "God", is hubris of the highest sort....

I'm not sulking, I've just grown tired of the repetition in this conversation.

And, as someone with friends and loved ones who are partnered homosexuals, I find the assertion that straight love is holy while gay love is selfish and narcissistic to be shallow and insulting.

[Questing Beast]

I'm not sulking, I've just grown tired of the repetition in this conversation. And, as someone with friends and loved ones who are partnered homosexuals, I find the assertion that straight love is holy while gay love is selfish and narcissistic to be shallow and insulting.

Feelings run high and deep over this issue. I too have loved ones not living as they have been taught, "in sin" by definition. Yet they are excellent people, as human beings go. The trouble arises over black and white thinking, all or nothing, good or evil. Nobody is that way, we are all composites of conflicting parts. Mostly we are good most of the time. Our bad decisions cause conflict within and with our relationships. Is a parent to disown or break off contact? Most parents say no to that. And most parents are prone to reconsider their views on what defines morality and right and good. They see a loved daughter enmeshed in a homosexual relationship, or living with a boyfriend. The boyfriend is at least monogamously attached to the daughter, so nothing is said to break off relations with the daughter, and hopes are that eventually they will get married. Then another daughter begins a relationship with a woman, is the same hope attached here? Not at all. It seems like "fornication times two" to the father. No desire to see a "marriage" exists. Is the daughter an evil person? Far from it, she is loving and serving to a high degree, and has plans to better herself all the time, school, independence, financial responsibility, spirituality, etc. How can what she is doing therefore be termed bad or wrong? Yet it is. She is imperfect, and some complex in her world view has made her antagonistic toward the traditional morality: probably because too many advocates for it have exercised a "cutting off" approach, coupled with religious polemics of an insulting quality, etc. So the bisexual daughter is proving a point of her independence, supporting her "gay" friends by engaging in a form of solidarity. She is very, very young still. Wisdom is hard-won. Her father is patient as possible. And yes, his daughter is engaged in a lifestyle that runs counter to the simple principles of Joy: we do not help others by joining them in their misguided, foolish, destructive life choices. The daughter will learn that someday, and the father hopes the price of that lesson will not be too high....

[Storm Rider]

I'm not sulking, I've just grown tired of the repetition in this conversation. And, as someone with friends and loved ones who are partnered homosexuals, I find the assertion that straight love is holy while gay love is selfish and narcissistic to be shallow and insulting.

 

You talk as if you are the only one with an close experience with SSA family or individuals. You might want to begin listening to others and their experiences and relationships. Suffice it to say that you are far from unique and you have many here with similar and first hand experience of this issue.

 

Straight love? Who ever said anything about "straight" love? This is the type of exaggeration that serves no purpose except to allow you to get up on a high horse. I was attempting to describe divine love, godly love, sacrificial love. You consistently take little snippets from various places and create whole cloth to build your logic.

 

You want a god that cares nothing for commandments, righteousness, or holiness. You want the saccharine god of love that has daisies in his hair as he waves his wand of rainbows and puppy dog tails and just wants everyone to sing Cum-Ba-Ya. That is not God and never was god. God is bound by his own laws and teachings. What is the first command that God gave to Adam and Eve?  Go back to Genesis 1:28   And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth...

 

From the very beginning the purpose of God's children were to multiply and replenish the earth. This is completely and totally foreign in a homosexual coupling; it is not possible, it is not natural, it is at complete cross purposes to what God wants and has stated.

 

Does it matter that two people love each other? Does it matter that a sinner loves to sin?  Does his/her love make the sin more pleasing before God? What if the sinner really cannot conceive of anything other than living in sin; surely God will accept the sin because....well, because the sinner loves the sin. This is the logic you are using; you ignore all of God's laws and teachings because you think that loving the sin means it must no longer be sin.  Sin is sin; what does God say about tolerating sin?

 

Our Father in Heaven's objective is to make us like him.  In this process he knows that not everyone will have their lamp full of oil when the Bridegroom comes; many will be left outside of his presence. Does that mean God hates his children?  Does that mean that he does not want all of us to return by his side?  This is a PROBATIONARY period; we must demonstrate our love for God by sacrificing our own will for His will.  Do you get this?  Do you understand the importance of self-sacrifice in our relationship with God? 

 

Holiness, righteousness cannot be achieved fully while dwelling in sin.  We can do good things, we can even appear to be good people, but God will recognize our love for him by keeping his commandments.  Our love of sin is what should be sacrificed rather than put on a pedestal and worshipped as "love".

[CV75]

Well, if the account of Adam and Eve is supposed to be taken in the strictest sense as the only possible union acceptable to God, then plural marriage is wrong and Section 132 is apocryphal.

Not at all!

 

In the strictest sense, Adam and Eve could have been anybody, and everybody was given the same command. No matter how one defines himself, he is still Adam, or Adam could have just as well have been him. To focus exclusively on sexual orientation and how it plays out in this may be unhealthy and counterproductive, but everyone has to start somewhere and everybody can repent.

 

Even plural marriage, as an extension of the covenant between Adam and Eve, is between a man and a woman. But let’s try to stay on the topic of why Adam-Adam unions are or are not in line with those eternal principles that were laid out from before the foundation of the world, carried out in Eden and ever since, and are expected to continue worlds without end. Homosexual love has to take a back seat to divine love, for this is where the Lord is coming from and where He is leading us with these types, commandments and covenants.

 

If you want to make this about the virtues and merits of homosexual love, then we cannot move past that priority any further than if you wanted to make this about Victorian love.

 

If you want to make this about exploiting the subjects of priesthood eligibility, plural marriage, or any other issue as a straw man, then we cannot move forward, either.

 

Pretend you are homosexual and imagine what you would if you were in Adam's shoes, considering the circumstances and all that was at stake. The same thing goes for you in the world you have been given for your testing.

[rockpond]

Feelings run high and deep over this issue. I too have loved ones not living as they have been taught, "in sin" by definition. Yet they are excellent people, as human beings go. The trouble arises over black and white thinking, all or nothing, good or evil. Nobody is that way, we are all composites of conflicting parts. Mostly we are good most of the time. Our bad decisions cause conflict within and with our relationships. Is a parent to disown or break off contact? Most parents say no to that. And most parents are prone to reconsider their views on what defines morality and right and good. They see a loved daughter enmeshed in a homosexual relationship, or living with a boyfriend. The boyfriend is at least monogamously attached to the daughter, so nothing is said to break off relations with the daughter, and hopes are that eventually they will get married. Then another daughter begins a relationship with a woman, is the same hope attached here? Not at all. It seems like "fornication times two" to the father. No desire to see a "marriage" exists. Is the daughter an evil person? Far from it, she is loving and serving to a high degree, and has plans to better herself all the time, school, independence, financial responsibility, spirituality, etc. How can what she is doing therefore be termed bad or wrong? Yet it is. She is imperfect, and some complex in her world view has made her antagonistic toward the traditional morality: probably because too many advocates for it have exercised a "cutting off" approach, coupled with religious polemics of an insulting quality, etc. So the bisexual daughter is proving a point of her independence, supporting her "gay" friends by engaging in a form of solidarity. She is very, very young still. Wisdom is hard-won. Her father is patient as possible. And yes, his daughter is engaged in a lifestyle that runs counter to the simple principles of Joy: we do not help others by joining them in their misguided, foolish, destructive life choices. The daughter will learn that someday, and the father hopes the price of that lesson will not be too high....

 

I agree that the "cutting off approach" coupled with "religious polemics of an insulting quality" are likely to have made her antagonistic toward your traditional morality.

 

And yes, I too hope that the price of the lesson will not be too high for either party.

[rockpond]

You talk as if you are the only one with an close experience with SSA family or individuals. You might want to begin listening to others and their experiences and relationships. Suffice it to say that you are far from unique and you have many here with similar and first hand experience of this issue.

 

Straight love? Who ever said anything about "straight" love? This is the type of exaggeration that serves no purpose except to allow you to get up on a high horse. I was attempting to describe divine love, godly love, sacrificial love. You consistently take little snippets from various places and create whole cloth to build your logic.

 

You want a god that cares nothing for commandments, righteousness, or holiness. You want the saccharine god of love that has daisies in his hair as he waves his wand of rainbows and puppy dog tails and just wants everyone to sing Cum-Ba-Ya. That is not God and never was god. God is bound by his own laws and teachings. What is the first command that God gave to Adam and Eve?  Go back to Genesis 1:28   And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth...

 

From the very beginning the purpose of God's children were to multiply and replenish the earth. This is completely and totally foreign in a homosexual coupling; it is not possible, it is not natural, it is at complete cross purposes to what God wants and has stated.

 

Does it matter that two people love each other? Does it matter that a sinner loves to sin?  Does his/her love make the sin more pleasing before God? What if the sinner really cannot conceive of anything other than living in sin; surely God will accept the sin because....well, because the sinner loves the sin. This is the logic you are using; you ignore all of God's laws and teachings because you think that loving the sin means it must no longer be sin.  Sin is sin; what does God say about tolerating sin?

 

Our Father in Heaven's objective is to make us like him.  In this process he knows that not everyone will have their lamp full of oil when the Bridegroom comes; many will be left outside of his presence. Does that mean God hates his children?  Does that mean that he does not want all of us to return by his side?  This is a PROBATIONARY period; we must demonstrate our love for God by sacrificing our own will for His will.  Do you get this?  Do you understand the importance of self-sacrifice in our relationship with God? 

 

Holiness, righteousness cannot be achieved fully while dwelling in sin.  We can do good things, we can even appear to be good people, but God will recognize our love for him by keeping his commandments.  Our love of sin is what should be sacrificed rather than put on a pedestal and worshipped as "love".

 

 

I've done my best to understand your statements.  I apologize for where I have failed.  I never intended to put myself on a high horse.  I don't feel that way.

 

I was restating what I thought that you were saying... mainly that the love between gay couples cannot rise above succumbing to carnal passions.  Whereas the love between heterosexual couples (forgive me if my shorthand use of the term "straight love" was offensive) can bring us toward Godliness.

[Brian 2.0]

Not at all!

 

In the strictest sense, Adam and Eve could have been anybody, and everybody was given the same command. No matter how one defines himself, he is still Adam, or Adam could have just as well have been him. To focus exclusively on sexual orientation and how it plays out in this may be unhealthy and counterproductive, but everyone has to start somewhere and everybody can repent.

 

Even plural marriage, as an extension of the covenant between Adam and Eve, is between a man and a woman. But let’s try to stay on the topic of why Adam-Adam unions are or are not in line with those eternal principles that were laid out from before the foundation of the world, carried out in Eden and ever since, and are expected to continue worlds without end. Homosexual love has to take a back seat to divine love, for this is where the Lord is coming from and where He is leading us with these types, commandments and covenants.

 

If you want to make this about the virtues and merits of homosexual love, then we cannot move past that priority any further than if you wanted to make this about Victorian love.

 

If you want to make this about exploiting the subjects of priesthood eligibility, plural marriage, or any other issue as a straw man, then we cannot move forward, either.

 

Pretend you are homosexual and imagine what you would if you were in Adam's shoes, considering the circumstances and all that was at stake. The same thing goes for you in the world you have been given for your testing.

 

I see what you are saying about the eternal scheme of thing how a male-male relationship cannot have eternal increase, etc...

 

But for a lot of homosexual Adam's, they don't have a "choice" to partner up with an Eve.  They simply do not have romantic feelings for women, at all.  So they aren't choosing between an Adam-Adam or Adam-Eve marital union.  They are forced to choose between Adam-Adam or Adam-Nobody.  

[rockpond]

Not at all!

 

In the strictest sense, Adam and Eve could have been anybody, and everybody was given the same command. No matter how one defines himself, he is still Adam, or Adam could have just as well have been him. To focus exclusively on sexual orientation and how it plays out in this may be unhealthy and counterproductive, but everyone has to start somewhere and everybody can repent.

 

Even plural marriage, as an extension of the covenant between Adam and Eve, is between a man and a woman. But let’s try to stay on the topic of why Adam-Adam unions are or are not in line with those eternal principles that were laid out from before the foundation of the world, carried out in Eden and ever since, and are expected to continue worlds without end. Homosexual love has to take a back seat to divine love, for this is where the Lord is coming from and where He is leading us with these types, commandments and covenants.

 

If you want to make this about the virtues and merits of homosexual love, then we cannot move past that priority any further than if you wanted to make this about Victorian love.

 

If you want to make this about exploiting the subjects of priesthood eligibility, plural marriage, or any other issue as a straw man, then we cannot move forward, either.

 

Pretend you are homosexual and imagine what you would if you were in Adam's shoes, considering the circumstances and all that was at stake. The same thing goes for you in the world you have been given for your testing.

 

Sorry, you can't just dismiss that and continue to make your same points.  If we are all to consider ourselves Adam and Eve and consider that to be the only acceptable possibility, than plural marriage is false doctrine.  This is not a strawman, this is an exploration of your argument.

 

The account of Adam & Eve doesn't clearly does not insist that a one man, one woman union is the sole commandment from God.  He later introduced plural marriage and authorized its sealing in the temple section 132.  So you can't point to Adam & Eve and say "this is the only way it is supposed to be".

 

And since we are discussing who can and cannot be sealed in the temple, it is also not inappropriate to bring in the topic of how we prohibited blacks from being sealed, did so without authorization from the Lord, and then justified it by reading the ban into scripture.

[CV75]

I see what you are saying about the eternal scheme of thing how a male-male relationship cannot have eternal increase, etc...

 

But for a lot of homosexual Adam's, they don't have a "choice" to partner up with an Eve.  They simply do not have romantic feelings for women, at all.  So they aren't choosing between an Adam-Adam or Adam-Eve marital union.  They are forced to choose between Adam-Adam or Adam-Nobody.  

Pretend you are homosexual and imagine what you would if you were in Adam's shoes, considering the circumstances and all that was at stake. The same thing goes for you in the world you have been given for your testing.

[CV75]

Sorry, you can't just dismiss that and continue to make your same points.  If we are all to consider ourselves Adam and Eve and consider that to be the only acceptable possibility, than plural marriage is false doctrine.  This is not a strawman, this is an exploration of your argument.

Pretend you are homosexual and imagine what you would if you were in Adam's shoes, considering the circumstances and all that was at stake. The same thing goes for you in the world you have been given for your testing, and your ancillary arguments will fall into place.

[CV75]

If you don't accept the difference between divine love and romantic feelings and sexual feelings, you won't get the message Adam got in Eden, and you won't get the message in your current circumstance. But if you were Adam, it is easy to see what you would have done, and what can choose to do about it now. If you don't have or create the opportunity to marry in the Lord's way, God will judge your circumstances and make a way for you to keep His commandments and reeive His covenants. All kinds of people of all kinds of orientations are tested in this way.

[rockpond]

Pretend you are homosexual and imagine what you would if you were in Adam's shoes, considering the circumstances and all that was at stake. The same thing goes for you in the world you have been given for your testing, and your ancillary arguments will fall into place.

 

So is your suggestion that a gay man marry a woman because that's what you view to be the commandment based on your strict (but debunked) interpretation of the Adam & Eve account?

 

Because the Brethren have stopped counseling that and have advised that we don't view heterosexual marriage as a solution.  Possibly because of the dismal success rate of mixed orientation marriages.

 

Here's a possible answer to your bizarre hypothetical:  Adam asks God for a male bisexual helpmeet and the three of them enter into a plural marriage.  And that's okay by your definition because there is still a man and a woman involved.  Done.

[rockpond]

If you don't accept the difference between divine love and romantic feelings and sexual feelings, you won't get the message Adam got in Eden, and you won't get the message in your current circumstance. But if you were Adam, it is easy to see what you would have done, and what can choose to do about it now. If you don't have or create the opportunity to marry in the Lord's way, God will judge your circumstances and make a way for you to keep His commandments and reeive His covenants. All kinds of people of all kinds of orientations are tested in this way.

 

Actually, if you are going to stick with your strict, unalterable view of Section 132, you might want to take a look at verses 15-16 which stand in contradiction to what the prophets and apostles are saying today that homosexuals who obey the law of chastity and live worthily will receive ALL the same blessings.  When they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage.  How do you reconcile that?

[CV75]

So is your suggestion that a gay man marry a woman because that's what you view to be the commandment based on your strict (but debunked) interpretation of the Adam & Eve account?

 

Because the Brethren have stopped counseling that and have advised that we don't view heterosexual marriage as a solution.  Possibly because of the dismal success rate of mixed orientation marriages.

 

Here's a possible answer to your bizarre hypothetical:  Adam asks God for a male bisexual helpmeet and the three of them enter into a plural marriage.  And that's okay by your definition because there is still a man and a woman involved.  Done.

In this life he can marry, but only if he so chooses. I am talking about Eden, and what he would have done there. While Adam-Eve pairing is the pattern for what can be done in this world, we all fall short in some way. But there is provision for the faithful to receive these blessings in the next life, before the resurrection.

 

Some still choose to do so in this life, with great success. There is a recent thread about that.

 

There is no asking by the children during those primal stages, they are who they are, finding themselves where they are; there is only a presentation of the test and the expectations by the Father. So your answer is not possible.

[rockpond]

In this life he can marry, but only if he so chooses. I am talking about Eden, and what he would have done there. While Adam-Eve pairing is the pattern for what can be done in this world, we all fall short in some way. But there is provision for the faithful to receive these blessings in the next life, before the resurrection.

 

Some still choose to do so in this life, with great success. There is a recent thread about that.

 

There is no asking by the children during those primal stages, they are who they are, finding themselves where they are; there is only a presentation of the test and the expectations by the Father. So your answer is not possible.

 

You said that you don't need to interpret the Adam & Eve account in the strictest sense but then you create a hypothetical that forces only one choice.  We know that the Lord can reveal other options.  He did with polygamy.  And now you are suggesting that He has also provided a way for the faithful to receive the blessings in the next life which would, given your strict interpretation, contradict Section 132:15-16 as I noted.

 

And yes, some mixed-orientation marriages work.  But even Josh & Lolly Weed don't recommend it for everyone.

[CV75]

Actually, if you are going to stick with your strict, unalterable view of Section 132, you might want to take a look at verses 15-16 which stand in contradiction to what the prophets and apostles are saying today that homosexuals who obey the law of chastity and live worthily will receive ALL the same blessings.  When they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage.  How do you reconcile that?

Of course you must understand that anyone who remains single in this life, but who is worthy will be given the opportunity to receive the blessings as outlined my so-called stict, unalterable view (LOL!) of D&C 132 prior to the resurrection. And having the pure love of Christ, divine love, he will gladly receive it and rejoice. There is no greater mercy. You speak as if people with homosexual dispositions are the only ones suffering this predicament in this life, and as if a person can precisely identify whether he is or isn't (using what gradient, and does it even matter in Eden?)--talk about strict and unalterable!

[rockpond]

In this life he can marry, but only if he so chooses. I am talking about Eden, and what he would have done there. While Adam-Eve pairing is the pattern for what can be done in this world, we all fall short in some way. But there is provision for the faithful to receive these blessings in the next life, before the resurrection.

 

Some still choose to do so in this life, with great success. There is a recent thread about that.

 

There is no asking by the children during those primal stages, they are who they are, finding themselves where they are; there is only a presentation of the test and the expectations by the Father. So your answer is not possible.

 

And what if Adam were black in Eden?  What of that hypothetical?  He wouldn't have been able to marry Eve in the covenant until 1978.  And apparently he couldn't have asked the Lord for a pass.

[CV75]

You said that you don't need to interpret the Adam & Eve account in the strictest sense but then you create a hypothetical that forces only one choice.

Well, after all, we are all Adam and Eve.

 

And yes, some mixed-orientation marriages work.  But even Josh & Lolly Weed don't recommend it for everyone.

Yes, some people have to wait.

[rockpond]

Of course you must understand that anyone who remains single in this life, but who is worthy will be given the opportunity to receive the blessings as outlined my so-called stict, unalterable view (LOL!) of D&C 132 prior to the resurrection. And having the pure love of Christ, divine love, he will gladly receive it and rejoice. There is no greater mercy. You speak as if people with homosexual dispositions are the only ones suffering this predicament in this life, and as if a person can precisely identify whether he is or isn't (using what gradient, and does it even matter in Eden?)--talk about strict and unalterable!

 

I agree that those who live worthily but don't have the opportunity will not be denied it in Section 132.  Like you, I feel it would only be consistent with the nature of God to allow for that.  But that isn't what verses 15-16 say.

[CV75]

And what if Adam were black in Eden?

For all I know, he was black--doesn't matter. In fact, I've often contemplated that he was. The same eternal principles apply.

[rockpond]

Well, after all, we are all Adam and Eve.

 

Yes, some people have to wait.

 

We are all unique individual sons and daughters.  We are not each Adam/Eve and are we not in Eden.

[CV75]

I agree that those who live worthily but don't have the opportunity will not be denied it in Section 132.  Like you, I feel it would only be consistent with the nature of God to allow for that.  But that isn't what verses 15-16 say.

Oh. To me, "this world" is any period between birth and the resurrection. "Out of the world" is after the resurrection.

[CV75]

We are all unique individual sons and daughters.  We are not each Adam/Eve and are we not in Eden.

Yes, we are unique in some ways, in opposition to all being the same. Opposition doesn't neessarily have to entail good and evil; justice and mercy are both good. There is one plan of happiness, in opposition to many for misery (in this case, opposiotn is between good and evil).