I never said He had physical "intercourse" with her. He is not a biological male!!
(Yow! The things you object to --- that I didn't say ---are really mounting up here.)
I am saying God impregnated her.
Being impregnated is a "conjugal" thing --- related to the marriage covenant --- whether or not it involves intercourse.
Let me give you an example. Say Ted and Ann are newlyweds. They are both virgins. Say before Ted and Ann can consummate their union, they are tragically separated for some reason (he's hit by a train, critically injured, or something) and when he recovers many months later and returns safe and sound, he find she has had a baby.
She says this is no violation of the marriage, because she conceived the baby by getting 5 cc's of gametes from a guy on CraigsList, who delivered them in a specimen bag.
Is Ann's intentional procreation outside of marriage a violation of Ted and Ann's marital relation? Or is it not?
I did not say He had physical "intercourse" with her. I, nor engaged in any human activity, which is one reason why the adultery change is bogus. A supernatural spiritual act of God is not that an insemination by man, as being impregnated by God is a creative act, not a physically "conjugal" thing and as the author of life God can both give such as well as remove it.
In seeking to defend a Catholic belief that is nowhere in Scripture (and would require the approval of her head), you are equating physical actions by humans and laws that that deal with them with a supernatural spiritual act by God who is not bound by them. And in the supernatural realm God can both be a creator/father and spiritual one and a husband at the same time, while to be consistent with your reasoning, then one could say that God engaged in incest since as a creator/father he engaged in a conjugal act with his daughter!
Let me give you an example.
It is simply a spurious analogy, since aside from the fact that there is more to two persons becoming one than simply receiving seed, what man physically does is not the same thing as if God does so, who could both supernaturally impregnate a women as well as take it away without being either an adulterer or murderer.
In the mortal, human realm that is the case.
If impregnating Mary as a married/betrothed woman was committing adultery with her, then impregnating a single woman would leave Him open to the charge of fornication.
If it was sexual sin with a married woman it would be sexual sin with a single woman.
But it wasn't, even though she was impregnated because NO SEX OCCURRED.
Being impregnated is a "conjugal" thing --- related to the marriage covenant --- whether or not it involves intercourse.
Chapter and verse?
You analogy of Ted and Ann is ludicrous. That is a pathetic, desperate grasping at straws.
Mary didn't remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus according to Scripture and nobody sinned in that happening.