[Voice in your head]

"So let me clarify. Kicking dog in park, illegal, not in park okay?

Yet if your idea of government is no regulation so long as I'm not interfering with your rights, how could kicking my dog ever be illegal?"

I expained my "idea of government" in post #125. "Government's purpose is to serve as a body in which we vest our rights to self defense from force, fraud or coercion and we vest our rights to determine rules regarding use of public property."

In response to your question regarding animal cruelty, I said "On public property, it would prefer that it be illegal." If you view this in light of my position, as stated by me, then this is consistent. I think that animal cruelty is morally wrong and I think that the government is justified in making it illegal on public property. Therefore, I would prefer that animal cruelty be illegal on public property.

What does any of this have to do with the thread?

[asmith92008]

So then would homosexual activity be permitted to be outlawed on public property. I'm not talking about sexual activity but simply kissing or holding hands.

It has to do with the fact that I have found most libertarians to oppose moral regulations until you find something they don't like. Dog kicking is usually what gets them.