Wow. You're not the least bit ashamed in saying that.
Not at all.
Sir Thomas More was Chancellor of England under Henry VIII until he was beheaded for not submitting to the Act of Succession.
History records that every single time Thomas More met his father, whether in the street or in private, he got down on his knees to him, and asked his blessing, even though socially he was superior to him. This was an act of respect, in honour of the commandment to honour our fathers and our mothers.
Just because we have become casual in relation to our own parents, does not mean that other generations were the same. Jewish people have
great respect for their mothers even today. There is no reason whatever to suggest that Christ will not have respect for his mother, in the same way that Solomon did for his.
Remember, in Song of Songs, Solomon is taken as an allegory for Christ, and his beloved as an allegory for the Church. So there is good reason to pay close attention to how Solomon is shown to behave to those around him; he is not Christ, but sometimes he is a pattern for Christ; an OT type or allegory of him.
Mary is no more Christ's mother than Joseph is his father. Jesus existed BEFORE Mary, and being God, created Mary; NOT the other way around.
Finally we have the source of your somewhat heretical thinking. Certainly Christ is eternal, but by the mystery of the Incarnation, in his eternity he is the product of
both Mary and God. Don't ask me how, but Christ is who he is eternally, not just from 5BC. And he is
eternally both fully man through Mary and fully God through the Holy Spirit.
God is not subject to time. Any act involving God in creation is an act of eternity, not of temporality. Therefore the Crucifixion is eternal, the Incarnation is eternal, the Birth and Resurrection are eternal. In Our Lady the eternal and the temporal come together, and the result is the Firstborn of the New Creation.
Thus, Mary isn't truly Christ's mom, and Mary isn't "Queen of Heaven".
I am sorry to say this is not what the Bible says, and it is not what any Christian creed says. It would appear that it is not the Romans whose theology is somewhat lacking.
This isn't about a literal "woman". She's a symbol of something, just like the twelve stars and "moon under her feet" are. In fact, the ENTIRE book of Revelation is full symbolic figures. Claiming this as literal proof of Mary is just not intelligent.
I claimed nothing. I let Revelation speak for itself.
Those who have eyes to see, let them see.