Your proof text and my proof text seem to contradict each other. So which interpretation of these scriptures do we believe?? Yours, based on the doctrines and fancies of fallible men, or mine, based on the teaching of that Church to which Christ Himself granted authority "to lose and to bind," and which He promised the Holy Spirit would lead to "all truth"? Actually, the texts don't conflict with one another at all. The proofs you cite show that celibacy is an option -- even a good thing -- for those who can handle it. However, it is a far leap of logic to deduce that celibacy must be enforced for clergy.
Further, how would you explain the passages which describe marriage for church leaders? How would you explain Peter and the other Popes and clergy who married until the idea of enforced celibacy was dreamed up? Was Peter violating God's will for church leaders?
Your position is inconsistent with scripture and fails on the face of its logic.
Perhaps the scriptural passage means that those who cannot handle celibacy may get married, but are not called to the priesthood?
There is a good book on celibacy (or, more correctly, continence) in the early church written by Fr. Christian Cochini, called
Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy. There are solid reasons why celibacy is a requirement of the priesthood, much like marriage is a requirement of parenthood.