i think it comes down to our separate interpretation of said scripture.
jesus points out that marriage in god's eyes makes the couple one flesh. the bond is total.forever. except unchastity.
the disciples reply;if that is the position with husband and wife,its better to refrain from marriage.
now your reading of that seems to be refrain after a first marriage. my understanding is; the disciples,knowing what they knew about the results of their actions and seeing the obvious difficulties of bonding two humans so irrevocably, suggest it is preferable not to get married at all. after all it doesn't read refrain its better to refrain from re-marriage.
to which jesus replies; that is something which not everyone can accept.
ie...it was too big a leap in the time of moses to rule out re-marriage...and at the time of jesus not everyone was capable of renouncing marriage. jesus relises we've all strayed a long way from 'as it was in the beginning'
that is something not everyone is capable of accepting,but only those who god has appointed it. for while some are incapable of marriage because they were born so,or were made so by men *(perhaps gays ...i don't know its not the point i'm making)*,there are others who have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.
jesus is making the distinction between those who don't get married because fate made it so and those who actually CHOOSE not to marry per se. and he's not referring to re-marriage.or why would he use the example of those who were born so?
the disciples can see the benefit of re-maining un-married at the time they lived. but jesus urges them to accept others will be householders and this is no problem if they are not appointed to renounce marriage for the kingdom of heaven.
he's not talking about re-marriage.
let those accept it who can...... clearly if he was taling about re-marriage/divorce he'd have been a little more emphatic! that tone of that statement would run contrary to his earlier clear pro-nouncement on adultery.
peace be with you.