Don't forget what happened when I put it all in context for ya. Oh nevermind, ya already did.
OK, Steven. Here's the thing. I can entirely see where your view of Matthew 1:25 is possible. I can see where a reasonable person could take this statememtn and the mention of Jesus' "brothers" and acheive your position.
Can you at all imagine that the Catholic position is plausible? That Mary was a consecrated virgin and Joseph took her as his wife not for sex, but for protection? That the references to "brothers" and "sisters" might be ambiguous given the language and culture? Is it possible?
SD