Hello again Alaska,
I believe the concept you are refering to when it comes to parabolic 'proclivities' is not with out merit..many are guilty of this in terms of both mistaken, yet honest intent as well those who are set forth by Satan to intentionally raise false teachings to the detriment of the body of Christ, out of sheer force of their nature.
That being said..
What I observe here is an example of pesher commentary..Of course God did allow divorce but that does not mean it was right or that he wasn't suffering that for the time being until perfection came by way of a new testament.
After establishing that the truth is reflected in "let not man put asunder" based on that they are one flesh after the pattern of Adam and Eve, the Pharisees very clearly saw the implication in this and asked him why then did Moses command to allow divorce.
He responded that it was for the hardness of their hearts but that from the beginning it was not so; again supporting the prohibition based on the pattern of the first marriage in the beginning.
The term pesher means, "to explain." In fact, however, pesher is an application of OT scripture with little to no concern for the context of the passage applied.Pesher interpreters assume that OT authors were speaking to the contemporary audience. This form of interpretation is tied to a word, text or OT allusion, which is then related to a present person, place or thing. The interpretations are generally aloof from the source context and appear to lack any coherent methodology.
This is why I have asked you to supply the scripture used as a source context outside of simply making a citation of what your personal reaction was to it at the time you began building your commentary on this subject so that I might be able to better understand the them you have arrived at as the actual intent of Christs teachings as they apply to the matters of marraige, divorce and remarraige..
To some extent, it appears you have done the very thing you have cited was an error on the part of "others" you are holding accountible the standards you are citing are one and the same as Christs.
You have made an assumption of what is "a belief", assigned it to being mine ..opposed to yours, and that yours is representing "gods" merely on the basis its, "your conclusion".Which brings to mind your belief that since God described a parabolic spiritual divorce scenario to people under the OT law, therefore the ability to divorce literally for us in the NT must be allowable.
By this reasoning we should also then be able to have more that one wife because he uses what they were familiar with regarding polygamy to equate himself as having two wives in another parable in Ezekiel.
The reasoning you have applied to the issue of "polygamy or homosexulaity" have very clear and numerous scriptural contexts set forth in scripture for scripture to expose and respond to parabolic interpretations.
I welcome accountability Alaska to how and why I have arrived at my understandings of Christs teachings of divorce, and remarraige, I am a devout and fierce advocate of marraige..but I would never go so far in my love and respect for marraige to impose inaccurate or unscriptural bias against "literal" divorce in respect to the fact God has indeed approached this subject "literally" with "literal" concession and this "literal" concession ever being construed as "being a 'literal' sin" he authored and allows..
Until you can seperate the concept that not all divorce is "sin" and that God does not 'author' sin because he allows divorce and demonstrate how this is resolved scripturally..in your thesis..well I am gonna be a bit cautious here..with the conclusions you have arrived at, albeit sincere and well meaning..