If being a warrior, which is a dangerous and expensive occupation that considerably shortens your life expectancy and costs a lot of money to maintain yourself independently without constant looting, is punished by enforced celibacy, whereas being a priest, which is an easy comfortable job that has a striking dominance over the lists of long-lived men (and women) in the premodern era, comes with no social sacrifices, what proportion of free persons would want to be warriors rather than priests?
You have everything to lose and very little to gain, and you don't get to continue your line. Why fight for such a society?
There are some workarounds to that: 1. slave armies, especially in societies riven with slavery, and doubly so in societies where slaves could rise to important positions. So we're thinking Mamluks, Ghulams, Janissaries. Those eventually tend to accumulate power, seize control of the state, and relax rules about marriage and procreation, or else persuade the state to do so. 2. A warrior society that's functionally celibate except for the high achievers and special circumstances, and one that reproduces itself by capturing and training child soldiers or recruiting volunteers. So here I'm thinking about the Imbangala. Any women in the Imbangala armies that had kids either had to kill them or else leave the army, and their kids didn't inherit any status. A bit unusual, but such societies existed. 3. A society where the warriors are disdained and the scholars elevated, so anything Confucian. The nobility is non-martial, the soldiers are conscripts or criminals and live in barracks, so functionally unmarriageable. Same problem as with slave-army societies: the army eventually either rises up and overthrows the priest/scholar domination, either through martial lower aristocracy subverting the state (Japan), popular uprisings (China), or simply becoming an unmotivated and ineffective rent-seeking mass of people who aren't able to stop the next invader whose society treats its warriors better (Korea, China over and over). 4. Mini-societies ruled by say, Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or Neoplatonic martial orders, which combine monasticism and militancy, whatever alt-hist you're in, with the key proviso that this society is largely parasitic on a regular civic society that can support it through rent, tax or charity and produces the members of the monastic parasite society (third sons or whatever).
Those are the examples I can think of. They're all impermanent, IMO.