Changing the conclusion or argument

What would the fallacy be called for suggesting a conclusion that the original person didn’t suggest. Example:
Person 1 states “according to the Bible, one should not deny their spouse sex.”
Person 2 “ How dare you suggest that you the right to rape your spouse.”

that would be a misrepresentation of the argument and therefore a strawman.

This would be a Strawman . Person 2 took what person 1 said and twisted it into a version that could easily be argued against.

To avoid this fallacy, person 2 should let person 1 come to that conclusion themselves. For example,

Person 1: According to the Bible, one should not deny their spouse sex.
Person 2: Does that mean, for example, that if the wife does deny the husband sex that the husband has the right to have sex with her anyway?
Person 1: Yes.
Person 2: Isn't having sex with someone without their consent, rape?
Person 1: Yes.
Person 2: So you are suggesting that one has the right to rape their spouse?
Person 1: Shit. I better rethink my beliefs.

If person 1 said "no" to the first question, then person 2 would be out of line to suggest the conclusion they did.