I don't know how long you've been on the CBW (Catholic Bashing Wagon), but get some better resources than religioustolerance.org.
From their About Us page:
"As of 2010-DEC, we consist of one Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist. Thus, the OCRT staff lack agreement on almost all theological matters, such as belief in a supreme being, the nature of God, interpretation of the Bible and other holy texts, whether life after death exists, what form the afterlife may take, etc."
Sorry, all these things disqualify them from being a reliable source (MOSTLY: because they deny absolute truth). They dislike the fact that the Church has a claim on authority of truth (in matters of faith and morals) and interpretation, not that the Church claims it (which they hate), but because it's a truth held by just over 1/6th of the world. As well, the site is relative on issues of morals. On top of that, they use private interpretations of the Bible, I don't accept private interpretations because it holds no authority.
And, sorry I have a tendency to discredit people who don't look to the Early Church Fathers and try to disprove the Church, because am I supposed to believe a man 2000 years after it happened or the early Christians who clung to the traditions that they were taught?
"The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).
Hilary of Poitiers
"If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been MaryÃ¢??s sons and not those taken from JosephÃ¢??s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, Ã¢??Woman, behold your son,Ã¢?? and to John, Ã¢??Behold your motherÃ¢?? [John 19:26Ã¢??27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).
"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).
"And to holy Mary, [the title] Ã¢??VirginÃ¢?? is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).