It's often pointed out that Simon had a mother-in-law. Presumably, that was because he had a wife. In non-canonical writings, it is stated that Philip had four daughters, it could be presumed that he also had a wife. So, that might not be considered a clear example.
The writer states correctly that it is a matter of discipline not doctrine.
In my mind, the question then becomes one of authority. The Church has a set of practical reasons for imposing this discipline. The protest, to me, seems rooted in a failure to understand, or a refusal to acknowledge, the authority of the bishops to impose this discipline. No one ever says the practical considerations are unreasonable.
We have all sorts of lesser disciplines that could more easily be tossed aside. Perhaps I should decide for myself whether or not I am in the mood for a Eucharistic fast today. The world would certainly tell me it is not necessary. Just a bunch of old coots randomly exerting power over the gullible.
Unless, of course, they really are who they claim to be.
Then they are my servants and their reasons are based on a concern for my well-being.
LOL! That's quite a presumption.
In any event, without doubt - and in no way affecting the force of this article and the correctness of the virtue of perfect continence (chastity) as practiced in the Church, you both need to read St. Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians. Chapter 9 would be the place to start for what I'm thinking. Pay close attention to verse 5.