Fire and Ice...which would you pick?

Robert Frost's poem, Fire and Ice, is one of my favorites, actually. I've heard it be analyzed in a thousand different ways. Some people believe that fire and ice are metaphors for religion vs, science, or passion vs hate, or good vs. evil. A lot of readers say that Frost's poetry, in it's time, was overlooked as being very literal, and just had a sing-songy quality, and that was what was so great about it, (as a music major, I have literally sung at least four of these poems as song text in choirs that I've performed in), that  no one ever truely saw the deeper, darker meaning of his poetry. As I was reading what the internet randomly gave me once I looked up more on this poem, I was a bit astonished to see how deep some readers can dive into these poems, trying to find meanings, while it all seems so simple to me.

Maybe it's just me being simple, but did anyone ever think that maybe Mr. Frost meant exactly what he said in Fire and Ice? That between two opposites, there are benefits of them both, and both are just as good as the other? He first makes the case for fire, then instantly changes and says that "ice will suffice"...well, which is it? As readers, we are dying to know which he thinks is better, but maybe that was his point, that neither are better. There is no lesser of two evils. Both cause pain. The latter can end the world just as easily as the first. They are one in the same. Can it really, really be that simple? I always thought of it as that simple. The only literary reference I know of this poem, is that Stephenie Meyer uses it in the preface of one of her novels, and the reader instantly relate the poem to a love triangle that is formed between three of the main characters. One boy represents fire, the other ice, and the girl is the poet. She is not sure which boy to choose, because they both have their faults, and the both have their benefits...