I want to add a bit. Cherry gave two examples: "She has to go home to do the housework". "She has to go home for doing the housework". These really do not have the same meaning. An English speaker would use the first construction only for this sentence. You will not hear an English speaker say the second. Here is why... The first will be understood to mean "She has to go home IN ORDER TO DO the housework;" or, "She has to go home BECAUSE SHE NEEDS TO DO the housework." And this is, in fact, what we mean. The second will be understood to mean "She has to go home AS A CONSEQUENCE FOR DOING the housework;" or, "She DID THE HOUSEWORK, AND SO she had to go home." And this doesn't make sense. Look at it in another set of examples. Any verb may be substituted for "do": "to X" (to sleep, to love, to give, etc.) "for X-ing" (for sleeping, for loving, for giving, etc.) 1. He was sent home early from school TO SLEEP. 2. He was sent home early from school FOR SLEEPING. The first means the teacher sent the student home IN ORDER TO sleep. He looked tired, and the teachers were merciful. They suggested that he go home FOR THE PURPOSE OF sleep. In the second, the teacher sent the student home BECAUSE HE SLEPT in class. Going home was a CONSEQUENCE for sleeping when he should have stayed awake. The only time these are interchangeable is when one of the following is true: 1. The meaning of "in order to" and "as a consequence for" will mean the same thing: Ex. A: "He was paid $1000 TO BUILD the wall." Ex. B: "He was paid $1000 FOR BUILDING the wall." And, even here, be careful. The first (as Cherry pointed out) means he was paid BEFORE the work was done. The second means he was paid AFTER the work was done. 2. The meaning is about the INTENDED PURPOSE or SUGGESTED PURPOSE of an item (or person): Ex. A: "A hammer can be used TO REMOVE nails." Ex. B: "A hammer can be used FOR REMOVING nails." Here, the meanings are quite the same.

Hello Chris, In case of expressing the purpose they both serve as causal clauses and give the same meaning. Example: "She has to go home to do the housework". "She has to go home for doing the housework". Otherwise they could be having different meanings and be used in different contexts: Example: When using "for" as part of the phrasal verb "thank for" it will give another meaning and can't be substituted by "to do" in that case: " I have to thank him for doing me that favor." You can't say " I have to thank him to do me that favor". It will give a completely different meaning then. The first phrase expresses the reason and the cause for the action of thanking him,which is " doing the favor". Here doing the favor is prior to the action of thanking him and it is the reason for it. In the second phrase the action of thanking him will be prior to him doing a favor ,it is a motivation and incentive for the other to do the favor. He needs to be thanked in order to do a favor at all. I hope this explains it .Mainly they do give the same meaning when expressing a purpose, but their forms will not absolutely give the same meaning when used differently.

Yeh I think after having read Erik's post, he is rather right! My definition was not quite correct, although the second example I mentioned explains the difference between using "to do" and "for doing" which Erik elaborately explained with giving further examples with other verbs as well. Well done Erik ;)