Saga Should Jedi be allowed to have relationships?

But that's the thing. The EU is someone else' take which time and time again went (needlessly) against what was established by the person who created the Jedi.

It's even worse when it's a pointless demonization that contradicts what's been presented onscreen.

 

They had to work with what they'd already been given.

And the author does see the Jedi as, in general, Good:

http://geekosity.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/endnotes-for-star-wars-jedi-path-part-4.html

p. 126: Jedi Sentinels are pragmatists. They also work closely with the "common people" and aren't fond of ceremony or rules. Sentinels basically just want to get the job done. On the Jedi alignment chart Sentinels would be Neutral Good or sometimes even Chaotic Good, as opposed to the Lawful Good of most Jedi Consulars and Guardians.

 

There's no Jedi sentinel, or consular or guardian. They all follow the Jedi way and they all want to get the job done. There's no "Jedi alignment charts".

That all falls on the EU tendency of labeling and contriving every handwave and eye blink.

 

I'm joining the people complaining about the Jedi Path, my biggest problem with it is that it is supposed to be an IU book that jedi younglings read but the author, IMO, don't write it like that. It should read like it was written by Jedi to younglings who have grown up with the Jedi lifestyle but it don't.

That it also that it present computer game enemies, like Jedi Tank, as official Jedi ranks

Well, that failed if you aske me.

Where is that said IU?

Did not know that, what EU works is it that says the opposite?

Do we know where that was first established?


Back to the relationships discussion, or rather marriage discussion since that seems to be what we are actually talking about.

When it comes to the jedi and marriage we also have to remember that:
* a jedi knight's live a life off constant travel and returning danger and that is often damaging on permanent relationships.
* if the spouse is a non-jedi it is possible that s/he can influence the jedi's decisions regarding matters where her/his culture/species is involved.
* many cultures expect that a marriage/similar also involve a political alliance between the families of the couple and if the jedi don't acknowledge this they will likely not be seen favourably and possibly make them hostile to the jedi and their decisions.
* One of the reason why the catholic church forbade marriage was to prevent the creation of dynasties, nepotism based on kinship and keeping priests' wives and children from inheriting church property, all which had begun to be a problem at that time. Maybe the Jedi order had similar reasons.

Regarding only accepting really young children do I think the idea is not really to prevent an parent/child attachment, since the child will most likely develop something like that with the jedi who raises him/her/it, but to prevent double loyalties to both his parents culture and the jedi order. There is also all the cultural biases and ideas most cultures have against things and by only raising the child within the order so do you prevent at least the parents biases and ideas to cloud the jedi's judgement.


Also, it feels to me that many posters here are working from the idea that marriage and family in SW is corresponding to how it looks in the modern Anglosphere (or at least the romanticised version of it) but it is more then likely that the idea of marriage and/or family is different when it comes to many planets/cultures in GFFA.

Something we also have to remember when we discus the jedi are that the order is not made up by just humans but many other species who have different biological and cultural ideas on how to threat children/partners/sex/parents/family/family organisation/lots of other stuff.

 

I believe you're thinking of Jedi Brute:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Jedi_brute

 

Yes, my mistake, thanks.

 

I think at least part of the hostility to the marriage ban, might have to do with the EU portraying pre-AOTC PT-era married Jedi (Ki-Adi Mundi, in comics, Thracia Cho Leem, in Rogue Planet, Nejaa Halcyon, in I, Jedi.

 

Ahsoka was well under the age of eighteen when she quit the Jedi Order, around the end of the second year of the Clone Wars. So Padawans can quit if they believe they should not be a Jedi. Or if they disagree with the rules. Not sure if it still applies, but the old EU had those who failed to be taken in by a Knight or Master becoming servants of the AgCorps.

But anyway, the rest of your point still stands. Kids in the real world don't have that much in the way of rights until they reach certain specific ages. You cite religion; look at how many kids start out going to their denominational church until they reach their teens and then stop going, because they're given the option to keep going or stay home. My best friend from back in the day, would go to church every Sunday and attended a church related thing every Wednesday. Then as soon as he got a part time job, he stopped attending and his views had changed from where they were when we first met.

You bring up education; some kids who live in the Midwest attended country schools instead of a conventional elementary school. They didn't get a choice about that, but did by the time they reach junior high and high school. Or those who go to either a private school, a military school or a religious school. Same deal. When you're older, then that can change. One of my classmates had attended school in another town for most of his life, but for the last two years, he decided to attend the same school his stepbrother attended, which was also my Alma matter. But he graduated with his former classmates instead of with us.

So there is a lack of freedom in the real world, with young children and it is no different in the GFFA. More freedoms come as you age. That's just life.