Is it possible (intellectually honest) to 'contextualise' the 'anti-divorce' passages, but not the 'anti-homosexual' ones? (Disclaimer: This is an honest question, I'm not trying to be inflammatory. Also I confess to not having done a great deal of research on this one)

I'm not familiar with the positions of all denominations on the matter, but generally it seems that those who allow remarriage after divorce treat the "clear word of the Lord" with some measure of 'contextualisation/reinterpretation'.

I don't know all of the arguments involved, but I wonder if they aren't the same, or similar, to the ones advanced in defence of skirting the 'plain meaning' of texts condemning homosexuality.

Obviously, the for/against arguments in both cases are extensive, so I'm not asking for a comprehensive review of them: I just want to know if there is a substantive difference in the 'techniques' used to justify both.
In short, I don't believe there is a plausible way to reinterpret divorce regulations without opening the gate to reinterpreting homosexuality in similar fashion. This point is not lost on all prominent evangelical leaders (e.g., Albert Mohler, John Piper, Tim Keller, John Frame, etc.), even if it seems lost on some (the old school Moral Majority, perhaps). There's not total hypocrisy on this front, though it sometimes seems that way.

Divorce (and hence remarriage after divorce) and homosexuality, according to the evangelicals I have in mind, are both outside of God's desired plan, though not out of his sovereign will. The difference is that the law regulates divorce, permitting it due to our hardness of heart, but not approving of it. The same cannot be said of homosexuality, according to any historico-grammatical exegesis that I am aware of. It is always and everywhere forbidden. There's at least a little more wiggle room in divorce regulation.

Incidentally, I asked a related question that, alas, got deleted: Have any denominations modeled their positions on gay marriage after OT regulatory structures? That is, have any denominations applied the hermeneutic they apply to slavery, polygamy, and divorce -- each of which we could characterize as suboptimal but regulatable rather than being proscribed outright -- to homosexuality. I don't have an answer to that question, which is why I asked it, but I thought it would be a potentially interesting approach to consider.