Are we born to an evolutionary purpose?

Could be a case made for it in some situations. Yes, this is true. Indeed, an inate musical talent can be evolutionarily advantage. It might be nothing to do with physical genes but cultural memes of course. Indeed. The point that kuresu and others (incl myself) that some things which seem on the face of it to run counter to the concept of selfish genes or 'survival of the fittest' (homosexuals would seem to pass on less genes than heterosexuals, on average) can still survive because of kin with similar genes who do reproduce more. That's kind of the conclusion Freud came to. However, I think everything we do is rooted in genes, but that culture has a bigger impact on our actions.

The point is to illustrate that it isn't individuals that are major concern, but the survival of the genes. Genes can (and do) exist in familial groupings. Think of sterile insects - they never survive to reproductive age, yet they thrive. They thrive because they defend/build shelter for/feed/etc the reproductive members of their close family. That's the point really in a nutshell. One cannot argue that homosexuality would be selected against without knowing everything about homosexuality. There is one paper which has noted that siblings of gay men have a greater fecundity (produce more offspring). The genes of the homosexual men are not passed on by them reproducing (necessarily), but instead their siblings pass on their genes (which are about 50% the same).Giving birth to a homosexual child, could be a trade off for the rest of your children being more reproductively active.I'm not saying that this is in fact the case, it is just pointing out that the argument 'if homosexuality is genetic, then evolution would have selected gays out' is too simple, and there are other potential factors that might come into this.