@WriterBuddha and yet the entire premise of the Original trilogy is two Jedi Masters watching over 2 kids for the sake of the galaxy. Sometimes it is the individual who the Fate of others relies upon.

Further there are Jedi who devoted their lives to watch over the next generation called Younglings. So Jedi who have families don't have to devote themselves in a binary choice between nameless others and their families. Just as families of soldiers, cops, or doctors don't. Lots of jobs require families to separate for long periods of times. Your argument literally undermines the sacrifices they make and they literally prove it can be done. Plus Jedi do have duties to their Padawans, Younglings and their order, so again it's hypothetical to act like Jedi have a sole responsibility to some random mission... so how exactly does having a family make it any different? People having multiple duties and not being able to meet all of them is literally why the Jedi banded together and formed an Order (else they'd all be wonderers). Which brings me to my next point.

As such families absolutely could have been supported by the Jedi Order as it was in the Prequel era if they so chose. This isn't a valid point, as such, to them being unavailable. As they literally did have the foundation of a support system that shows they could have supported families.

Next off, absolutely no one is saying Jedi have to have everything (or everyone one going to get happy endings). What makes Jedi having families narratively interesting is that they do have to make sacrifices to their personal lives and that overall they are the type of group who are willing to do that. While also training the next generation to do that too. It makes them far more relatable to audiences too. We literally witnessed this in Legends with Nomi Sunrider, the Skywalker clan, Corran Horn, Ki-Adi-Mundi (yes in Legends he had a family that he loved too), and lots of others. You basically rob the Jedi as characters from being more dynamic and relatable to audiences if none of them can have families. Further it really limits storytelling potential with them as a group.

Families don't lessen one from developing spiritually either. That's insulting a huge portion of the worlds religions that do allow families actually. Separating ones self from others doesn't necessarily make one closer to god or the force. Usually being non-married is more about devotion to the monastery or church than enlightenment, and that's not my words but the Catholic church and many monastic communities say so too (though some say it's about enlightenment).

All you're really doing is building a house of cards argument here. Nothing you said is actually fact, just an ideology. It can easily be substituted for a different ideology. Further as enlightenment can't really be measured it truly is impossible to say. Especially in the case of Star Wars, where the Master and Apprentice relationship is basically very similar to a family too.

Heck, Canon has Leia who was married plus a mother and yet still achieved enlightenment by maintaining her consciousness after death.

Look, I get that some fans like it, but let's face reality here. Nothing in the lore actually supports the No Attachments rule being the sole way supported by the force or the lore. It's just an ideology a few characters have.

Dear @LordRyus I must admit I am a bit confused about your response.

First thing first, I did never claim, families "lessens one from developing spirituality," or "separating ones self" would "make one closer to god or the force." So, I don't understand why you felt it important to point out Leia being married and being a mother, or why you felt that you need to defend having families. Nor do I understand why do you think, not having families is related to not having attachments as I outlined that above. Also, you seem to missed the point I was making: the Jedi master and the apprentice had a parent-child relationship. In addition, besides in my opinion, being a doctor, cop or a soldier is not something that can be compared to a fairy-tale warrior monk whose job is to keep peace and justice in the known universe, you didn't really provide any argument how conventional family can be squeezed into the Jedi's life.

As for "just and ideology a few characters have," and "Nothing you said is actually fact, just an ideology. It can easily be substituted for a different ideology." I might add George Lucas has this "ideology," as you put it, too, and I myself don't see why it would lack foundation in facts - and apart from stating that it does not a fact, you didn't provide any argument to support your claim.

Are we talking about Star Wars as it is, or something entirely different? Are we talking about Legends or canon or Disney-produced canon? The "Jedi banned marriage" etc. arguments are actually undermined by the fact that legends has Ki-Adi-Mundi in the prequel era married, with kids.

How "Sometimes it is the individual who the Fate of others relies upon" relates to what I wrote above, and in your mind, how it's a counter argument to it?

Sounds like a rule a sith who infiltrated the jedi order would've made so that the jedi wouldn't make babies harmful to their cause.

A relationship like a friendship is not necessarily the same as attachment. Love does not equal attachment, at least not in SW. You can love someone or care about someone without being attached to them. Attachment in this context means, simply put, that you put your own feelings about this relationship in the center. You care (mainly) about someone because they make you happy. That leads to you feeling pain to a greater degree when you are separated from this person. It's a rather unhealthy type of relationship, compared to the one encouraged by the Jedi: love someone without being possessive of them, care about them without putting your own feelings above all else.

As you say yourself, the Prequel Jedi actually show that they encourage relationships like friendships or master-padawan-relationships which, however, doesn't necessarily mean that they are attached to their friends. What they discourage is marriage, as you point out. I personally don't think marriage is all that comparable to other relationships. When you marry somebody, you essentially take an oath about devoting yourself to the one you marry. It's more than just a "casual" relationship like the one you share with a parent (figure) or friend of yours - while those can be very intimate as well, you're usually not "attaching" yourself to them. When you get married, however, you're devoting yourself to one person, pledging your loyalty to them. That can create conflict when you're at the same time expected to prioritize your duty to your Order.

While you certainly can be attached to friends or family members as well, I think being married to someone could cause this problem more likely. And of course it's also possible that some Jedi would be able to handle the conflict their duty to their Order and their duty to their partner would put them into but that would probably need a great amount of discipline.

So, no, I don't think it's a hypocritical rule. Although it may sound bizarre, the Jedi probably established this rule to make it easier for their members - choose the Order or your loved one, so you won't be conflicted in your loyalty (in the long run)

From what I can tell the original idea behind the no attachment rule was that you could love but not obsess.

Arguably the difference between love and obsession became blurred overtime as the Jedi became too connected with the Republic but you could also argue that the rule stayed the same.

Question, could a Jedi get attached to a stuffed animal?

Also (and please correct me if I’m wrong) the Jedi say they want to bring “balance” to the force but yet want to eradicate the Sith which doesn’t seem very “balanced” to me

^Imagine you had cancer. If you wanted to bring balance to your body you'd have to completely eradicate that cancer from your body because the cancer is harmful in every way. The Sith or more so the dark side of the force is that cancer and has to be treated as such.

This is the point of view in Lucas Canon at least.

^^It's like a balanced diet. You don't eat an equal amount of healthy and unhealthy, you have a wide variety of healthy.