No, the mold on meat isn't especially bad. It won't eat your insides. But still, moldy meat is worse than moldy plants.
Mold itself isn't a strong health concern. It can't cause an illness, and doesn't grow in the human stomach. There are some kinds which produce metabolic byproducts poisonous for humans, and this means that you shouldn't eat moldy food, because you don't know which type of mold it has, unless you know that the type is benign, such as in a piece of Roquefort cheese. But if you see a moldy vegetable and throw away the moldy part plus a generous part of the healthy-looking tissue (mold "roots" are invisible without a microscope, what you see on the surface is only its "flowers"), you have a non-neglible risk of ingesting a small amount of mold, but the probability of it containing toxins strong enough to cause symptoms is very, very small. So it is reasonably safe to eat the healthy parts of plants which had mold growing somewhere on them.
The problem is that mold grows in the same conditions as bacteria do, only more slowly. When food is stored under improper conditions (or for too long a time under proper conditions), if a mold starts growing and reaches a stage where it is visible, in this time all the bacteria capable of growing on this food will have multiplied into unimaginable numbers (remember, bacteria grow exponentially, with a generation cyclus often as short as 20 to 30 minutes).
Both plants and meat in our food supply have some chance of contamination with pathogenic organisms like salmonella, E. coli, and something-resistant SA (it isn't only MRSA which is bad for you, a staphylococcus can be resistant to any number of antibiotics besides methicillin). But these grow on protein, not on vegetables (insofar, your logic for the mold holds). So you are reasonably safe eating a thoroughly washed vegetable - even if it does have some human pathogens, there will be only a handful of them, even after days of non-refrigerated storage, and almost everyone's immune system can cope with that. But if you eat meat which was left in microorganism-friendly conditions for long enough that mold creates visible spots, you are eating colonies of bacteria numbering in the billions, even after cutting the moldy part away. If one of these colonies happens to be a pathogen, your risk of getting ill is very high.
Actually, it was probably high enough hours or days before the mold became visible. Heating to the guidelines temperature doesn't ensure that all bacteria die, it ensures that out of a hypothetical contamination, only one in 1 000 000 is left alive. But if left in a pot full of food, these bacteria left can start multiplying and reach their previous numbers after a few generations. So be mindful of the time cooked food spends in the fridge, even if you don't see or smell any alteration. But if you see mold on meat, it means that every reasonable risk limit for eating it has long been crossed. Just throw it away, period.
Best Answer
The only thing which makes food considered appropriate as a dessert is cultural convention. This is obvious once you observe the differences between cultures.
In some cases, the difference is very clear-cut. The only tastes acceptable for desserts are sweet and sour, with sweet being banned from all other courses. This is common in cuisines inheriting Ottoman traditions. Desserts there are very sweet, and the addition of a sweet taste to a main dish (e.g. duck with oranges) or non-sweet to a dessert (e.g. salty caramel) is considered very strange and unpleasant. Other modern cultures are more permissive. There are well-known sweet-and-savory pairings even in Western cuisine (the abovementioned salty caramel, melon with ham, sugar-glazed carrots), and Asian and South American cuisines seem to be even more prone to such mixes (e.g. a meat pie in a plantain crust). Then there are cases where no sweet dessert is eaten at all, for example the French tradition of viewing a cheese plate as a dessert. And historically, there was no distinction at all, with nobility eating everything expensive they had mixed in a single dish, so that you had rose water mixed with black pepepr, rice and honey served to meat, for example. There is a reason why older books on English cuisine list "savoury puddings", even though today "pudding" in its broad sense has come to mean "dessert". For further reading, also see this article - it is mostly on food pairings, but you can see how North American cuisine builds two clusters of food combinations, one centered on baked desserts (flour, eggs, vanilla) and the other one on savory ingredients, while in Asian pairings, the effect is much less pronounced.
That said, I suspect that if you are serving your dessert to people with predominantly Western upbringing, they would have hard time accepting something very meaty as a dessert. While ham with apricot and almonds is an acceptable combination by Anglo-Saxon standards, it is not served for dessert. I would make something with a strong fruit component, and combine with a small amount of delicate meat. A fruit salad with a few shreds of proscuito should work. Alternatively, you could take some meat without much taste on its own, like chicken breast, include it in some kind of filling, and combine with lots of fruit.