"Here is what you are not getting - it was also the Western tradition."
I was aware of that piece of trivia. And I didn't mention it because most contemporary Catholics, myself included, view it as irrelevant.
I was not alive when married Priests were the tradition in the western church. My grandfather was not alive when married Priests were the tradition in the western church. You could go back a dozen generations and still have people who were not yet born when married Priests were the tradition in the western church.
At a certain point, the tradition of the last several hundred years IS the relevant tradition, notwithstanding what may have existed prior to that date. So contrary to your assertion, I'm perfectly content with the idea that a tradition is valid and is in fact "the" relevant tradition, given that it has been in practice since the middle ages. This is not a fundamental issue of the faith, it's simply a question of tradition and canon law.
You could take a "which-tradition-was-first" logic to it's lunatic extreme. Why stop with the issue of celibacy? Let's look at liturgical traditions as well. I go to an eastern Catholic church, and if you're familiar with the eastern Catholic churches, you know that we usually celebrate the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Well, that's an old tradition to be sure, and dates from around A.D. 400. But in truth, it's a newfangled innovation because it was based on another, older Liturgy: the Liturgy of St. Basil. But then again, that's a newfangled innovation as well, as it was based on the still older Liturgy of St. James. So would you suggest that we have to celebrate the oldest Liturgy simply because it's the oldest? And presumably we'd have to celebrate it in Aramaic as well?
Not to the Orthodox - it is as it always was.