I have taken logic. What course in logic tells us lack of evidence proves a proposition false?
For the THIRD TIME that isn't what I said, what I said is that when IN THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE where you are trying to determine whether a SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL at a SPECIFIC TIME AND PLACE did A SPECIFIC THING, then 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence'..... and this is the normal way that we operate, as human beings, in our day to day lives.
If an individual is not able to prove that he DID do something, than this is taken as evidence that he did not do it:
'Did Johnny show up to school today?'
'Well, there is no evidence that he did, I spoke to all his teachers and classmates and none of them could remember seeing him, so apparently he played hookie'
This is the way we draw conclusions about whether someone performed a particular action or not, if there is no proof that he did perform the action, then we assume he did not. The possibility that maybe he did, but left no evidence, is simply dismissed as dumb.
Now, the argument you are making is more like this:
'I played Major League Baseball last season, and hit 950 home runs!'
'You did not, and you can't prove you did!'
'And you can't prove I didn't, so the question is still open!'
Now, you keep changing the question from 'evidence that Jesus was married' to 'evidence that Jesus was a bachelor' and this is sophistry because the two are simply not the same thing, getting married is PERFORMING AN ACTION, it is active, it is something that leaves evidence behind. It is the kind of thing which, if it happened, we have reason to expect evidence for.
Now, 'Being a bachelor' is 'CHOOSING NOT TO DO SOMETHING', it is not performing an action, it is not being active, it is the exact opposite of being active, it is passive, it is not the kind of thing for which we can expect evidence, because choosing not to do something doesn't leave evidence. It is ridiculous to ask someone to prove that an action was not taken, that an act was not performed.