If that's an argument, it goes right by me. It could just be that they believe that she WAS, not that she somehow "MUST" be. Maybe you could rephrase your question in a way designed to be both clear and not gratuitously offensive.
I keep looking for arguments and finding nothing but speculations built on tenuous conjectures. The Protestant Episcopal Church had a "Churching of Women" which morphed in 1979 into a Thanksgiving after child birth. One of the things involved there is that Mary was "churched" (mutatis mutandis), and if it's good enough for the Mother of the Lord, hey, who are we to argue?
I dealt with the fallacious conclusion from abstention before Mass.
You have yet to show an absolute need, so no more need be said there. It's a groundless assertion.
Paul is talking about men in ministry I believe.
Well, of course, being, as so many here are so eager to tell me, an ignorant Catholic who does not read his Bible and wouldn't understand it if I did, I wouldn't know about 1 Cor 7:25-40, and especially those parts dealing with παρθενων (v 25), η γυνη η αγαμος και η παρθενος (v 34) but that sure sounds like women to me.
If God intended her to remain a virgin he would not have given her a husband.
You know, it's not any more persuasive in bold than it is in normal typeface.
Mary gave birth to Jesus under THE LAW . That was a Jewish levitical law.
Bye, y’all.
Keep the faith and remember me in pryaer.