1.  If this gentleman's criteria is "normalcy" in helping him to form his opinion on Mary's Perpetual Virginity, well, he's just shot himself in the foot.

First of all, God can become totally "identified" with humans without insisting that his Mother engage in sexual relations with Joseph.  I am an only child.  If my parents had not engaged in sexual intercourse after I was born, I do not think anyone would consider *me* (or them, for that matter) any less than human.

Secondly, it is very normal for a couple to engage in sexual intercourse between the time of the conception and the birth of a child.  There are several months when the couple can comfortably engage in intercourse in this time, and there was no prohibition for a Jew against this.  Yet, what do we read?

Leaving aside the issue of "heos" (until) which, of course I deal extensively with in my paper, we learn from this passage that, before His birth, there was no sex before, during, or after Jesus' conception.  Now, my question to this gentleman is: Is that "normal"?

Finally, what, may I ask, is "normal" or "typical" about the Holy Family?  Two Saints and God Incarnate would not exactly fit the bill for an episode of Father Knows Best, would it?

2.  In respect of your direct question, here is a selection from my paper which addresses this issue:

"In Jewish law, any sanctified object (known as hekdesh in Hebrew) may not be used for personal purposes; it may only be used for the purpose for which it was sanctified.  Throughout the Bible, there are a number of physical objects that would certainly fall under this tradition.  The Ark of the Covenant is probably the most prominent example.  In fact, the solemnity of this tradition is witnessed to when Uzzah accidentally touched the Ark of the Covenant.  He was struck dead by God.

If it is inconceivable to even suggest that the Ark would be used for something other than carrying God's covenant, then why does not the same logic not also apply to Mary the Mother of the New Covenant?  Why do Protestants reject such a clear biblical analogy?  Is it to be held that St. Paul's healing handkerchief (Cf. Acts 19:12) would be returned to its natural purpose once its miraculous powers have apparently left, or that the actual cross of Christ would be good firewood after it had accomplished its intended function?  These are the absurd conclusions that the Helvidian position forces Svendsen and other Protestants to accept."

Another example I just thought of would be the burning bush and Moses:

Now, after Moses' conversation with God, does that "holy ground" cease to be holy?  Is it now permissible to treat it like any other ground?  Clearly not.

The problem with low-church Protestantism is that it likes to un-consecrate what God has consecrated.