Answer

The distinction between benefit that involves consumption or destruction and benefit that does not appears with respect to terumah. Regarding other prohibitions of benefit, I do not recall such a distinction.
However, with regard to the case you mentioned, it requires discussion, because the benefit is not from the cooking of the meat with milk but from the object itself (and one could use it even if it had not been cooked). In a case where you specifically need the cooking, it would apparently be forbidden. And similarly regarding a bottle of orlah as a paperweight. This requires further analysis (I have not looked into it now).
If you sell an item forbidden for benefit, the money received does not become prohibited through it (except for produce of the Sabbatical year and idolatry). And seemingly, benefiting from the money is itself only an indirect benefit from the item forbidden for benefit. So seemingly decorative use or using it as a paperweight is no less indirect.
However, Rashi’s view in the first chapter of Hullin is that orlah and other items forbidden for benefit do transfer their prohibition to the money for the seller. The implication of his words is that this is not really a case of the money itself becoming prohibited through exchange (since it is prohibited only to the seller), but rather that benefit from the money is considered benefit from the prohibited item itself, and is therefore forbidden. If so, according to his view, even indirect benefit is forbidden.