I've seen this one before; it's common to many arguments used by religious Christians (and probably lots of other people–religious or otherwise–too), and it's a logical fallacy…I can't remember the proper name for it, but I remember it colloquially being called the "True Scotsman" fallacy. Goes something like:
Person 1: Scotsmen don't eat porridge.
Person 2: My good friend Angus is from Scotland, and I've seen him eat porridge.
Person 1: Ah, but no TRUE Scotsman would eat porridge.
Basically, it's a way to take a correct definition (a person from Scotland is Scottish), and by making a particular modification to that definition, create a new definition that is claimed to be a "truer" definition (in this case, the "true" Scotsman is from Scotland AND doesn't eat porridge). As you noted, it's used to make some new, arbitrary definition that they've created seem somehow more desirable (or "more correct") than the actual, correct definition.
And also as you noted, many of the statements on those sites made claims with little to no supporting evidence or arguments (not outside Bible quotations, anyway); while the counterpoints made in this thread do.
My advice (not that you asked for any :P): the people that wrote the articles at those sites are not worth the effort of raising your hackles…most of their arguments would boil down to "things should be this particular way because that feels 'right' to us"…as you've said, they have every right to express that; but for me I find it's easiest to exercise my own right to ignore their speechifying (and feel free to do the same to me, I have a tendency to ramble on sometimes).
Nicely put, (I'll remember the "True Scotsman" fallacy for future reference) and your point about what feels right to those of a Christian inclination is apt, because, to me, the concept of muscular women feels right, and who's to say that what feels right to them is less right than what feels right to me, and, indeed,vice versa?
8) 8) ;D ;D
