Dear 100 Hour Board,
Is wanting to give your children good genes an acceptable criteria for choosing a potential spouse?
If we change the question from "giving my children good genes" to "maximizing my children's chances of survival" (which is the real force that drives natural selection), then pretty much everything we look for in a potential spouse ties back to it, whether we do it consciously or not. However, I think that finding someone with the right personality traits to make sure that we have a healthy marriage and raise our children well is ultimately more important than giving them slightly better genes.
If I had to pick a wife based solely on what kind of genes she and I would pass to our children, I would look for straight teeth (and never having had braces), good eyesight, and a tall father. I was lucky enough to never need braces or vision correction, but I'm shorter than average, even though my dad is 6'2". However, I think that as long as my father-in-law is also tall, even if my wife isn't, my children have a pretty good chance of being taller than me and not having to deal with life as a short person.
This just reminds me of a story that my bishop likes to tell. When he first met his wife, the first thought that popped into his head was "Wow. We would have beautiful children together!"
And that's all I have to say about that.
Interesting question. If I fell in love with someone but his dad had Huntington's or something I would probably still marry him. We wouldn't have biological children, though. I don't think it would be a big deal for me because I love the idea of adopting but I understand that it's really important to a lot of people to have biological children, so I don't think that's a totally unreasonable criterion.