Are we born to an evolutionary purpose?

In the thread "Homosexuality and Natural Selection" http://EvC Forum: Homosexuality and Natural Selection. -->EvC Forum: Homosexuality and Natural Selection. ( yes I know it's old) many evo's were defending a view that gay people are maybe born gay to play an "evolutionary" role to society. They help their sister and family more than a straight guy and so ensure their genes are passed on.refrerence: Okay, let's suppose this is true. What other "types" of human could we categorize to fit into this by applying the same logic?
Let's say a murderer. Maybe he's just killing people so there are not so many hostile "species" left to harm his family (therefore his genes will get passed on more likely)?
A rapist, maybe he's just increasing his chances of passing on his genes?
A musician, musicians are known to to make people happier, a happy family is more likely to not kill each other and are also known to be more sexually active.
A golf player, he's making a lot of money to ensure his own and familys' well being, therefore his genes are more likely to be passed on.My point is (if you didn't get it), anything can be ascribed to having an evolutionary purpose, but it just may not be that. Or can it?Is everything we do related to passing on our genes?
Are we born to a certain evolutionary purpose ex. gay people helping they're family to increase the odds of they're genes getting passed on?Or did I just confuse something?PS. I hope my evc idol NJ will pay a visit here

They can or may survive, but wouldn't heterosexual men have a better chance of survival anyway?
If we assume now for the sake of argument, that people are born gay or straight. Why would gay guys even be born if there is so much less chance that they're genes will get passed on? What evolutionary advantage (considering passing on genes) do gay men have over straight? Why/how would natural selection even come/end up with that?Edited by Neutralmind, : No reason given.

How do you know people aren't born murderers, rapists, etc. ? They also have a choice not to practice their "trait".

Those are all possibilities. But we could come up with the same sort of reasoning for almost any kind of human.
No, I will not define kinds

Thank you, this is the point I think I was getting at.
Any sort of behavior can be ascribed to having some evolutionary benefit if you think about it. That in a way also means, any sort of behavior can be ascribed no meaning. It's just speculation as far as I see it.