Well, technically the priest didn't own the land their future children could have inherited. It was church property. Never heard about the "they were all homos in the olden days" spiel. It doesn't make much sense, does it, since most homosexuals wouldn't have been fathering children back in 900AD. Unless they know something we don't.
Granted, non-married priests are a tradition, not a doctrine, so it coudl change. However, I dont' think its a viable solution in this day and age. Priests have a lot of pressure on them, they have to have a whole community under their watch. Insert a wife and children, you're going to put too much pressure on the Priest. This isn't like wishy washy branches of Protestantism where a minister can have a wife and kids, those minsters also have multiple lay individauls and other ministers assisting them. Its not like they're being called out at 2 in the morning to administer the last rites to some poor schmuck who got hit by a drunk trying to reverse out of a drive through.
Marriage is hard enough as it is, insert the domains of every Peter, Paul and Maria from the Parish they oversee and a wife could end up feeling very low down the ranks indeed; or the parish suffers from the Priest's familial details.
I'm not saying it can't be done, and the Eastern Rite, Anglican jumping married Priests seem to be managing, but I think we should just leave as is. Celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is a powerful asset.
I agree with what you have said except for the "they were all homos in the olden days" Never said that they were ALL. As it has come out there are quite a few gay men in the clergy and probably always have been.