No.
YOU are the one insisting that Mary had no sex ever.
I have only one position: Mary gave birth to Jesus and was a virgin at the time. Thus, I have two doctrines about Her: She is the mother of God and was a virgin at His birth.
Actually, this is a position you take, but is not not your central position. The core from which you evaluate and question is evidenced in nearly every post you make. Your "theology" is clearly anthropocentric. You do not start from Christ, and then understand all else through the light of Him. You start from yourself and look at Christ and Mary and the things of God in general as a comparison to your own ideas and the way you think they ought to be. This is a small standard with which to know the pre-eternal God. It makes Him the size of the human brain which, in comparison, is a most puny thing.
Your epistemology has gotten in the way; where it suits, you apply the experiential model -- there is no proof for the NT, so you say the equivalent of "all Christians accept it" ie experience it as valid. When it comes to "dogma", then you revert to the mode of epistemology that seeks knowledge in a text, or argument; knowing through intellectual uncovering. In this sense, you embrace both "schools" of epistemology in an opportunistic manner. You mix and if your method were not so haphazard, you would be approaching the third option. This third form has a widom, however, that you have not yet learned: that all discovery of knowledge is limited by the manner in which the mind understands.
In this, in using the epistemological praxis of Sola Scriptura, you have limited God and the things of God to the length and breadth of the human mind. Paul warned about this sort of secularization, the philosophy of men. It cramps the heart and mind, disallowing God His rightful "throne".
As an example, you seek to understand Mary as "any mother", and become deeply offended that she does not fit the mold of your mother. You seek to understand her role in the Incarnation through your own conception and birth, forgetting that you are not the model for Christ. The forcefulness and repetitive nature of your posts on these matters betray, at least in their written tone, a sense of offense that Christ is the center through which to evaluate the things of God, not yourself. This is the result of anthropocentric "theology".
But this thread is about what is distinctively LOVING about Her to spread around the world. Well, the RCC says as Dogma and the EO does as doctrine that it is distincively LOVING to insist that she had no sex ever.
Thus, I"ve asked 3 questions: Why THIS specific, singular, particular issue? How do you KNOW this is true (the RCC specifically states in its official Catechism that it is a SIN to spread a story or report about a person unless it is SUBSTANTIATED and if a SIN, that's hardly being loving - thus t he RCC insists the issue is not popularity or reasonableness or whatever, t he sole issue is if it is substantiated)? And finally, were is the permission from Mary to share this supremely private, intensively intimate, potentially embarrassing and hurtful and painful tidbit about her sex life with t he world's 6.5 billion people (including kids)?
Here is the epistemology of the enlightenment, this philosophy of men. And its also anthropocentric. God is love, but love is not God. And you make your personal standard the core through which you evaluate. And you have forgotten one immensly important thing: the 6.5 billion you mention (a number derived from ???) are family. This teaching was known among the family of Church, and was shared with family. It was not kerygma. It was not until challenges arose from the crucible of secularization that it was discussed more openly. Supremely private ? Yes, the family is the realm of the private. But the Incarnation, and our redemption are intensely "public". Christ came for all. For those that will have Him, these are family. Would you be embarrased to bear Christ ? Would anything that came from Christ, from association with Him, be hurtful ? Only to the secular, only in humanism.
Now, to the immediate subject. You seem to be trying to show that because Jesus was born of a woman, THEREFORE it is dogmatically substantiated that Mary MUST be a perpetual virgin. I think this is entirely baseless, and you've offered NOTHING to support your point - only flaming me because I don't just accept it as dogmatic substantiation. Look, Paul said that Jesus was born of a woman (NOT perpetual virgin). So was I. So were you. How does that dogmatically substantiate that our mothers are perpetual virgins? You won't answer the question because, IMHO, it's OBVIOUS your apologetic here is entirely baseless and moot.
Your dogmatic pronouncement of "moot" can be proven how ? Your dogmatic pronouncement of "nothing to prove your point ? I do think I must fail to explain things well, as no matter what I post, you repeat the same statements and questions.
This "philosophy" you appeal to, this epistemological ground you walk on, lacks the center for which all mankind was intended. Christ. Christ is not known through "epistemological praxis".
What is needed is not the epistomology of the last few centuries. What is needed is pistis.
Okay... How does that dogmatically substantiate that Mary was a perpetual virgin? Or my mother because I was born of a woman?
There it is again -- appeal to "intellectual uncovering of knowledge" and "self as measure". A sort of humanism.