Being tolerant of intolerance is not a virtue

@hartfire I disagree.Just because a thing might be "harmless",lets say homosexuality,doesnt mean its beyond the judgement and criticism of others.
I being not "homophobic" in the sense of wishing harm to anyone,but i do disapprove of it.I do not see it as "harmless",i see that it can be a basis for the breakdown of a calm and peaceful society.My opinion,you can disagree of course.

@wonkywinky
Okay - so let's look at why we disagree and what we consider "harm".
Sometimes "harm" can be an objective and obvious reality, such as when a pedestrian's leg is broken, as he traverses a crossing, by an absent-minded driver who fails to stop. Other harms are more subtle and less visible, such as the fear a black mother feels for her toddler when she insists he stay close by her side - she knows if she lets him explore freely he might come to harm - the result of experiencing a lifetime of daily micro-racist insults and a few that are not so micro but serious and dangerous.

@wonkywinky 2nd reply...
Interesting.
Since you choose that example, I'll address it.
I don't see homosexuality as harmful to society in any way.
Of course, if a homosexual adult were to groom or seduce a minor, I would consider that harmful and wrong.
For the same reason, it's wrong for religious leaders to seduce or sexually abuse members of their flock, teachers their students, doctors their patients, lawyers their clients, bosses their employees.
The issue is not gender orientation but the problem of inequality of power, riding roughshod over people who are vulnerable and may not understand the danger to their emotional health.

I can see why, in OT days, patriarchs might have seen any form sexual intercourse outside marriage as harmful to inheritance laws, guarding against accidental incest between people who don't know who their parents were. They were also trying to ensure as many babies as possible were raised within the security of a functional family at a time when maternal, infant and child mortality was extremely high. Abiding by the laws of monogamy helped ensured the survival of the 12 tribes and the newly developing identity and culture of Jewish people.
But today we live on an overpopulated planet. We need no more than 2 kids born to a couple - slightly under what is required for replacement. If we combine this with making it easy for people who don't want kids to remain childless, this leads to a gradual dropping of the planet's total population. Ecologists estimate that Earth cannot safely hold more than 5 millions humans without causing harm to the natural environment - harm to all ecosystems on a scale that inevitably ends up harming humanity as well.
If this idea became widely accepted, we could then say that homosexuality actually helps to bring down the population, at least among those gays who don't want to raise kids. In this sense, being gay could contribute to helping create a more ecologically sustainable world.

But there is another argument for why homosexuality is harmless in society. It is about love. Love is that which nurtures. While gays occupy all professions, they often occupy roles of creativity and service. They contribute enormously to our culture. Those who don't have kids (tea majority) often give far more hours to their work. They are, thus, enormously beneficial contributors to our society.

If you believe they cause harm to our social fabric, please tell me how and why? I would like to at least understand your point of view.