It just means they think the benefits outweigh the negative consequences.

Ahh, the old "can't make an omelet without breaking eggs" theory of politics. The problem is, the analogy fails because the omelet sucks.

I think you would vigorously object if someone claimed that you supported the adverse or unintended consequence of every policy you supported. You would insist - correctly - that one can support a policy that has both good and bad consequences (as all policies on complicated matters do) without actually desiring the bad consequences. It would be courteous to extend that same expectation to your opponents as well.

I'm accused of being literally every evil thing on planet Earth on a daily basis on this board. I'm told I support a Nazi police state and the systematic elimination of America as a country among other things.

It would also help you actually understand what it is they believe....

It's another popular refrain around here to accuse the right of not understanding what the left believes. The things is...that's merely a delay tactic. The left is constantly allowed to not explicitly state what they believe...and when someone calls them on the policies that the people they vote for implement they can claim 'that's not what I support' without actually saying what it is they support.

The 300 post thread was an excellent example. 300 posts of people not contributing much other than 'do what we've been doing'.