He also speaks in Mark, and in Mark there is not the qualification that is in Matthew. Jesus is quite clear on the subject, what God hath joined let no man break apart. Divorce nullifies God's work in bringing the man and woman together. So why does Matthew overturn Mark?
Nice strawman agrument, but it doesn't hold in the light of God's Word.
And when did Jesus speak on homosexuality?
A red hearing. Jesus did not speak on bestiality or child sacrifice either. Woo-hoo! Have at it! Jesus did not specifically speak against it so it's all good!
>>So why does Matthew overturn Mark?<<
He doesn't. There's no conflict between the two books except the one you're trying to create. It's not as if Matthew is saying "yes", and Mark is saying "no", Matthew is saying more than what Mark is saying. Most of the 4 gospels are like this; one expounds further on the same incident than another.
Matthew's writing includes the Beatitudes, Mark does not. Matthew expands on Jesus' temptation in the wilderness, Mark does not. Mark speaks of different healings than Matthew does. Does that mean Matthew was wrong? No. It doesn't mean Mark is wrong either. It's an omission, not a contradiction.
>>And when did Jesus speak on homosexuality?<<
You substitute one strawman argument for another? Typical among the pro-sodomy crowd. I'll humor you.
He doesn't. Not once does he mention the word. What he does mention, however, is sexual immorality, sin, and the need for repentance and purity. Any form of lust is sinful. Openly blatant, unrepentant, unnatural fornication with a member of the same sex is sinful. So is adultery.
He never mentions scores of other lustful sins by name either (beastiality, necrophilia, etc). Doesn't mean they're not sins.
If it helps you though, he does speak on the "sins of Sodom and Gomorrah", and we could surely spend a lot of time expounding on the sins of those two cities.
Sin is sin, and all of it is offensive to our Holy and Sovereign God. The only way to make it right is though repentance, clinging to Christ, and walking humbly and pure before Him.
The social difference here, and perhaps why the school reacted the way they did, is that divorced people aren't looking for special rights and treatment. Divorced people don't look to impress an openly sinful lifestyle upon children and tell them it's a-ok. By and large, divorced people aren't parading the streets demanding open and full acceptance into their life. In a lot of cases, divorce still carries shame. Something the sodomites don't consider.
Again, your strawman argument is a lost cause. It's been attempted before on these forums many times by many others who think they can use the Word of God against itself. They've failed. So have you.
I pray that you'll learn from this, and that it will bring you closer to the Lord.