Here is a little more information that counters the idea that the perpetual virginity was a commonly held belief of the early church:
The Catholics of Rome and even many of the Protestant Reformers have believed in the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Notice:
The French reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther, but he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was “Holy Virgin.”
The Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), wrote, on the perpetual virginity of Mary: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” Elsewhere Zwingli affirmed: “I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary; Christ was born of a most undefiled Virgin.” (Bacchiocchi S. “MARIOLOGY”. ENDTIME ISSUES NEWSLETTER No. 191, 2007).
But where did this come from?
Well, it did not come from the Bible. Here is some of what two Catholic-translations of scripture teach about Mary and her family:
25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and called his name JESUS (Matthew 1:25, DRB).
55…Is not his mother the woman called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Jude? 56 His sisters, too, are they not all here with us? (Matthew 13:55b-56a, NJB).
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? Are not also his sisters here with us? (Mark 6:3a, DRB)
So, perpetual virginity for Mary is not explicitly part of sacred scripture. Since Jesus was Mary’s first born son—the implication, which is confirmed in scripture, is that she had other sons.
While some have argued that the term for brothers in Matthew 13:55 may mean cousins, the Greek expressions for brothers (adephos) and sisters (adelphe) are what is in the Greek texts. The Greek terms in those verses do not mean cousins (Danker FW, ed. A Greek-Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p. 18 ). The Greek terms that better convey "cousin" are suggenh/suggenes/anepsios (Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.). And those terms are the only ones that are translated as "cousin" in the Rheims New Testament (Luke 1:36 DRB; Colossians 4:10 DRB). Mark 6:3 also uses the Greek expression for sisters (adelphe), and does not use the one that convey more distant kin like cousins. Thus, even Catholic translators seemingly admit that Jesus had brothers and sisters, and that cousin comes from different words. If the terms in koine Greek clearly was understood to have meant cousins, then most of those who professed Christ and lived in the first century or so after His incarnation would have realized that. But that was not their position. Furthermore, notice the following:
56 Among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. (Matthew 27:56, DRB)
The above clearly states that Mary was the mother of James and Joseph. And this is the Mary, mother of Jesus (Mark 6:3; John 2:1)--the Greek term for mother, meéteer, is the same as the one in John 2:1 where Mary is referred to as Jesus' mother). James and Joseph were not Jesus' half-brothers from a sometimes claimed prior marriage for Joseph, Mary's husband. This is not just my opinion. Notice what Catholic Priest and scholar Bagatti has published:
Hence, since the Bible does not say Mary would remain a virgin and it shows that Mary was the mother of at least two of Jesus' brothers, there is no biblical reason to accept the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity (but many still do).
Basically, scripture only says that she was a virgin UNTIL Jesus was born. All real Christians believe that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived inside of her by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35) and that she remained a virgin until some time after Jesus was born (Matthew 1:25; 13:55-56). Apparently, the earliest claim as to Mary's so-called perpetual virginity comes from a false document known as the Protoevangelium of James (McNally, p. 73). Why is it false?
This "gospel" falsely claims to have been written by James in Jerusalem and in the first century (The Protoevangelium of James. Translated by Alexander Walker. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 8. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. ). It states that a midwife checked, and found, intact proof of Mary's viginity shortly after Jesus was born. The claims of its authorship and date of writing are both being claims scholars realize are false (The Infancy Gospel Of James; Alternate title: The Protovangelion. Geoff Trowbridge's Introduction. http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/infjames.htm viewed 08/13/11; Kirby, Peter. "Infancy Gospel of James." Early Christian Writings. 2011. 13 Aug. 2011 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html; Reid, George. "Apocrypha." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 17 Aug. 2011 ).
Thus, this perpetual virginity teaching seems to have started from false sources.
It may be of interest to understand that the idea of Mary being a perpetual virgin was denounced once it started to become popular. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes:
That last article in The Catholic Encyclopedia also teaches that "St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, and St. Gregory of Tours" held positions similar to the Antidicomarianites. Furthermore, another article in The Catholic Encyclopedia states, "writers like Tertullian, Hevidius, and possibly Hegesippus disputed the perpetual virginity of Mary." Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma adds that the perpetual virginity of Mary was also denied in the “Early Church” by Eunomius, Jovian, Helvidus, and Bishop Bonosus of Sardica as well as Christians with practices some considered to be Jewish (Ott, p. 204).
The Greco-Roman "Saint Basil the Great" in the fourth century wrote:
Therefore, the idea that from the beginning all believed that Mary was a "perpetual virgin" simply is without real merit.
It, however, seemed to become formalized in the sixth and seventh centuries:
This dogma originated from a false source (a "gospel" that Saint James did not write). It was opposed after it started to become popular. Catholic saints scholars, and others opposed it. There is simply no evidence that it was taught by the apostles.
The dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary is an innovation that is not from sacred scripture nor the true earliest traditions of the Christian church. (http://www.cogwriter.com/saint-mary-dogmas.htm)
This, I believe, is why Protestants stopped teaching this doctrine and why many deny it. The Roman Catholic church declared many doctrines and dogmas that were not taught either in Scripture or by the Apostles within the early church but nonetheless passed edicts that ALL Christians must accept them as articles of the faith. It took the Reformation to open people's eyes to the truth that God's word is the source for our rule of faith. Even the early church fathers held to that. Scripture doesn't teach Mary was perpetually a virgin - though ALL Christians believe Jesus was born of a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit - and it does teach that Jesus had brothers and sisters.
In proving that not all believed, you make a very good case for most believing.
If a small minority are excluded from the most, and the most includes individuals as diverse, crative and non-mainstream as both Tertullian and Origen, your early patristic case is pretty awful. The sect obviously had more beliefs than just the one you are concerned with, and unless you know which ones in particular they agreed with, being able to list a few fathers in partial support isn’t that great.
If Rome were televising a horse race; it would pan the crowds, to see the reactions; rather than show the horses charging around the track.
The question I would like to have answered is WHY it’s so critical to claim that Mary was always a virgin, that she and Joseph never had a normal marriage, which included a normal sex life and normal raising of a family.
For all their meltdown to think that Mary was a normal human being who carried out a special part in God’s plan for redemption just like dozens or hundreds of people before her, why does the thought of her having sex cause such a meltdown.
Sheesh, she was human with normal human desires.
God didn’t put us here on this earth to be miserable our whole lives and to suffer privation and want and deny ourselves the very things HE created for us to enjoy.
The Catholic church sure denigrates marriage and sex with their exaltation of Mary and demand for a celibate priesthood, with the more than clear implication that sex is bad, dirty, sinful, unworthy of someone who is spiritual.