You share democratic institutions with sincere adherents of those odious beliefs, and they win elections at least some of the time. Understanding the “other” population and how to reason with it, or at least negotiate with it, is required if those democratic institutions are to continue.

Today’s dogma was yesterday’s odious belief. If we feel that the correctness of consensus opinion is on the rise, shouldn’t we be hesitant to freeze out future changes? If we feel it is falling, shouldn’t we want some protection for today’s correct ideas when they become odious again?

I can really only imagine subscribing to this viewpoint from within a long-term stable utopia whose primary threat is that someone will spoil it.

EDIT:

>What it does is normalize those beliefs and enable them to propagate while simultaneously exhausting those who oppose them.

I think this is is simply a mistaken view of human nature. Nothing confirms a conspiracy theory quite like jack-booted thugs who are actually out to get you for saying it. Nothing galvanizes a cause quite like official suppression. See the Streisand Effect or, for that matter, Christianity.