Quote:If you own an animal, the land you live on is your own (you're not in a community that might require you to agree not to torture, starve, beat or sexually interact with animals as a condition to purchase land there), then there's no legal ground for anyone to stop it. 

 

legislating morality is legislating morality, these fringe cases only lead to more laws that eventually lead you to a path of the level of moral legislation we have today. Where do people get the idea they need government to tell them whats right and what's wrong, laws don't equate morals. Property is property if someone is abusing their property it's up to others not to sell them property in the future. Most communities (cities, towns, counties even) and most banks before lending money to purchase property would require people to agree to not participate in these activities before selling or funding the purchase of land anyways. So why do you need government to legislate you can't do these random acts?

 

It's how you go from government saying "discrimination" is bad and we should make a law about that, to the government telling you who you can and can't marry.

 

I'm not sure I understand your answer.  It sounds like you think the government has no business legislating against animal cruelty.  So, to be specific, are you against animal cruelty laws?   Do you think laws banning animal cruelty fall outside your preferred role for government?    In other words, you would prefer that the government pass no law stopping me from setting dogs on fire as long as I own the dogs? 

---