[aruanan]

There's a latin ditty that sums up the view: "virginitas ante partum, virginitas in partu, virginitas post partum".

Having a baby miraculously conceived doesn't confer non-virginity any more than would breaking the hymen through birth confer non-virginity. It isn't the presence of a hymen that defines virginity, but the not having had sexual intercourse. As far as the virginitas post partum is concerned: "When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son." Matthew 1:24-25

[ConsistentLibertarian]

See. You're another case in point. You accept (1) and reject (2).

Was it clear to you that the British Clergy disagreed with you?

(Incidentally -- Christian artwork depicting the conception of Jesus typically has the Holy Spirit planting his seed through Mary's ear. I don't know if that counts as intercourse -- does it matter what hole gets penetrated? But if people did think it happened that way, that might explain why they insist on associating her virginity with her having an unruptured hymen.)