@sharutiaburaddofouren >It's actually funny to claim that Mary did not fulfill her marital duties because refusing each other is a sin, therefore that means if she were a perpetual virgin not only would it not have been necessary for Joseph to marry her, but it means she is not 'full of grace'
A child needs a father and mother. For all we know, Joseph was resigned to celibacy before his betrothal to Mary, and perhaps that was a thing he had accepted. One has to consider just how big of a deal the birth of The Messiah was to these people; that is a tough thing to consider today with the advantage of hindsight and limited writings on the historical feelings of common faithful practitioners of Old Testament Religion / late second temple Judaism.
>But in the bible it clearly says that Joseph "knew her not until she bore a Son" and literally every single other time in the bible knowing in a marital context means intercourse.
Nobody in the East or West disputes that meaning. The point is explicitly that Joseph did not have relations with Mary at any point between the conception and birth of Christ. It does not imply [but afterwards he did] nor does it imply [or ever at any point]. It is a statement of fact regarding that specific time period that would have been written differently today.
>Throw Joseph under the bus and ignore his role in the Lord's upbringing
I think you could make the opposite argument, which the East does a pretty good job of. Joseph's decision to honor God is almost as big a commitment as Mary. All he did would be seen as sacrifice and work for The Lord's benefit, which is a fantastic model for teaching Jesus as He would go in to do the same thing.