The three points of disagreement seem to be mostly founded in a misunderstanding of the Churches teaching.
1. When a man chooses to take the calling of the priesthood he is aware of what he is giving up. The rule against priests marrying has been there is a disapline, not a dogma, but was found to be a very good one and so has been in forced since very early in the church. On the other hand, there is not a rule against ordaining married men to the priesthood in the Eastern church and exceptions are made on a case by case basis in the West.
In my old parish we had an older priest who was married and had a family and was ordained after she died and the kids were all grown. Having experienced both sides he was a very vocal advocate for priestly celibacy.
2. This is a belief that can be traced to the church fathers and flows out of the oral Tradition of the church rather than the bible. The appearing contradiction can be understood as a problem with translation and words like cousin and brother not nessasarily having direct analogs in the original text.
3. Papal infallibility has nothing to do with sinlessness or always being right. Certainly a claim like that in review of church history would be patently ridiculous as occupants of that office have been subject to every vice and sin as the rest of us as well as ignorance and foolish sayings. All the grace of infallibility does is prevent the popes from teaching error about the faith in a very narrow set of conditions.
“When a man chooses to take the calling of the priesthood he is aware of what he is giving up.”
Says who?
According to St. Paul:
“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach.”
1 Timothy 3:2
These are Paul’s requirements for service in the clergy. Works for me!