I am genuinely confused by your comment. Are you, again, being facetious or are your arguments just bad?

> it is not morally permissible to engage in intrinsically immoral acts (sorry, utilitarians/consequentialists)

How would anyone define an intrinsically immortal act? It seems dishonest to discard well-established schools of thought while ignoring the very premise that makes them relevant.

> We may also not use the evil effect as a means of attaining the desired good.

> Finally, there must be a proportionality between the good and bad effects that justifies the toleration of the bad effect.

These two statements directly contradict each other.