An awful lot of pure CONJECTURE in this statement; NONE of which is SUPPORTED by any facts.
Forgive me, but I think you are forgetting some things. I am responding to the claim that the Bible directly contradicts the tradition that holds that St. Joseph was an elderly widower who already had children at the time of his marriage to the Blessed Virgin. It is no more conjectural than the argument that St. Paul's specific commentary on lust in marriage would apply to the marriage of our Lord's parents. It is no more conjectural than the argument that St. Joseph was a young man subject to such concerns. The difference between the conjecture that St. Joseph was young and lustful and that he was an old widower is that the latter is supported by tradition and the former is merely suggested as an argument against tradition. In the absence of any other evidence I see no reason to reject traditional teaching.
I cannot 'procreate', but I sure like a roll in the hay!
Please go back and read the context of what you are responding to. It has nothing to do with a "roll in the hay" as you so eloquently put it, but was put forth as a measure, by the poster, of all who were bound by the requirement of consummation. As a Christian from a Christian family I can tell you that consummation is also required for our marriages, and yet people do get married in old age for other reasons and those marriages are not considered null and void by people. When two octogenarians wed nobody is going to argue that they are not really married until they have "a roll in the hay." St. Joseph has traditionally been held to have been an elderly man past the age of procreation, and that his marriage was not for his own pleasure in the acts of consummation, but as a means of protection and care for the Blessed Virgin and the fruit of her womb. It was a pious act which was a response to the call of God, and not for his own benefit. That is why there was a discussion of "ability to procreate" and its impact on the status of any given marriage.
Why does Catholicism deny this GOD given pleasure to Mary and Joseph?
That is a bizarre question. That would be like asking why Catholicism denies St. Peter the pleasure of dying an old man at home with his grandchildren. How does Catholicism deny people from 2000 years ago some pleasure by merely recognizing what they did? Bizarre.
I hope a bunch of us OLD coots pounce on you whippersnappers (whipper - not mackerel) and mention Abraham, Noah, and others who were 'old men', yet fathered children late in life.
What is your point? Yes, older people have, by the grace of God, had children, but that doesn't affect anything. My elderly aunt who married very late in life also could have, by that same grace, become pregnant at eighty-five. Did she? No. And does that amazingly slim possibility actually mean that she must have had sex with the ninety plus year old man she married? Does it mean that he must have married her because he wanted to have sex and make babies? No, of course not. People do get married for other reasons, and I doubt very seriously there was ever a time when such was entirely unknown to society. That you or anybody else can or might want to have sex at any given age does not deny that some who are older might still desire marriage even if they cannot do as you may.
The fact is that tradition teaches us that St. Joseph was not a young man but a much older one who had married previously and had his own children. You may not accept that, which is fine, but it doesn't mean that the Bible contradicts it. Nothing I have seen, including the post I replied to above, has ever demonstrated or produced any actual such contradiction.
You've pointed out quite well how Catholicism gets a LOT of it's practices!
I wasn't trying to say you were WRONG; but showing how the RCC seems to be able to conjure things up out of thin air; claiming WE wuz first; therefore we is RIGHT!
Ask Rome.
It is the one who 'claims' Mary was/is a PERPETUAL VIRGIN.