Simeon ben Azzai is not a rabbi.
True. My error. However, that only makes the acceptance of his celibacy more to the point. Jesus was not a formal rabbi either. In fact, the record shows that the only people ever to call Him rabbi were either His disciples or Nicodemus, who was on a path to becoming a disciple. Simeon ben Azzai received the respect that he did for his outstanding knowledge of the law and for his piety. If celibacy was truly deviant in the same sense that pederasty is deviant, it would have destroyed his credibility. No one argues that a true deviant is pious. So even though Simeon ben Azzai actually argued that others should be married, he excused himself, and he was excused by his peers in the rabbinic subculture.
Another thing to consider. Jesus was just 30 years old at the time. Postponing marriage is not the same as declaring oneself to be celibate. Jesus' teaching activity would have shielded him from any immediate pressure to marry.
But even more interesting is what Jesus Himself said about celibacy:
Mat 19:8-12 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (9) And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (10) His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. (11) But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. (12) For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Note the reason Jesus spoke of celibacy. He has just told the disciples something shocking: God designed marriage to be permanent. They immediately react by saying, or impliedly saying, "well then, if you can't get a divorce except for fornication, then it's better not to marry." This would mean they were, according to you, saying it was better to be deviant than trapped. But Jesus doesn't react to it that way. If it was really wrong to be celibate, and Jesus had conformed to that standard, you might have expected him to say, "nope guys, you still have to get married. Just get used to the idea you can't get a divorce if she burns your toast."
Instead, what does He say? He specifically defies the notion of marriage as universally required. He says not everybody can handle being single, but some have, for a variety of reason, the ability (and apparently the right) to be that way. So either He is explicitly contradicting the social norm of "be married or be deviant," or He is giving an alternate, and more spiritual view of the nature of acceptable exceptions to the rule of marriage. In either case, He is establishing the propriety of celibacy under the right circumstances, and no one ever challenged Him on this assertion. You would think the Pharisees, if this was truly viewed as deviancy, would have latched onto that statement like a pit bull and dragged Jesus' reputation into the mud over it. That never happened.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude He did not marry, given the extremely focused nature of His ministry. He came to die for us.
Which raises another point. You mention elsewhere that it would not have been wrong for Him to marry. Leaving out the social norming aspect dismissed above, the syllogism to support that must go something like this:
Major premise: Marriage is good.
Minor premise: Jesus could do anything that was good.
Conclusion: Therefore Jesus could get married.
There is a defect in that syllogism. The major premise is fine, as a generality. But as we have seen above, celibacy can be good too. But that's not the problem here. The trouble is in the minor premise. Jesus could do anything that was good *if and only if* it was good within the framework of God's specific plan for His life. Pointing a gun and pulling the trigger is fine if done at a shooting range or perhaps in self defense and doesn't involve harm to innocent persons. The same act could be very wrong if an innocent person will suffer needlessly for it. Same act, diffeent measures of goodness. It's also good to live and not die on a cross, as a general principle. But for Jesus to avoid the cross would have been sin, not to mention an utter disaster for us poor sinners.
So while marriage in general IS good, it appears it would have been wrong for Jesus to do it. Others here have cited good and cogent reasons for that. Ultimately such decisions rest with the will of God, and we have to rest in the fact that His plans are always perfect, even though we may not have the wit to see how. Jesus was certainly entitled to the joys of an earthly family. But He gave up whatever He had to, including His own life, to save our miserable hides. Who is to say He didn't also knowingly surrender this earthly joy to receive an even greater joy in our restoration to Him:
Php 2:5-11 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: (6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: (7) But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: (8) And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (9) Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: (10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; (11) And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Peace,
SR