I don't see arguing about the "house" analogy could be productive. Viewing a website causes code to execute on my computer. Changing how that code executes on my computer doesn't change the website for the owner or for others visiting the site. Having a physical presence in someone's home arguably causes physical changes in the world for the owner of the house and for others visiting. It's not a useful analogy for this argument, to my mind.

I do like the television analogy, though. Presumably you'd argue that I shouldn't be permitted to mute the audio, change the channel, or skip ahead or back in the video stream when the "owner" of the video being displayed says I shouldn't. Does that "owner" have some kind of moral right in how I "consume" their content? Sounds like an argument for the "broadcast flag" and even more draconian restrictions to make the television that I paid for and own "belong" to someone else. Yikes! I wouldn't want to "consume" that content or buy a television that had that kind of functionality in it. (I'm already frustrated enough at DVDs with "unskippable" material that, effectively, punish me for using a legally-licensed media in a legally-licensed player.)

Arguing that I shouldn't be permitted to alter how a website displays on my computer is, effectively, arguing that I don't actually own my computer when a third-party says that I don't. "In consideration for viewing our website you agree that you don't own your computer." I definitely wouldn't visit that website. Nobody says that kind of thing out right, though. Website operators just require silly things like DRM-plugins (Silverlight for Netflix, for example) that erode my control of my owner computer. I don't partake of those kinds of "services", personally, and I definitely wouldn't recommend them to others.