"Should a homosexual be a good citizen?" Leo Bersani asked in Homos in 1995, expressing a gay skepticism that has dogged every upsurge of gay poli tics. Bersani's doubt results from his diagnosis of "the rage for respectability ... in gay life today." He locates that rage in postmodern dissolutions of gay identity, in clamors for gay marriage and gay parenting, in queer antisep ticizings of gay sex. "Useful thought," Homos suggests, might result from "questioning the compatibility of homosexuality with civic service." And from questioning more: Bersani makes a claim about social being itself. He hypothesizes "that homo-ness ... necessitates a massive redefining of rela tionality," that it instances "a potentially revolutionary inaptitude?perhaps inherent in gay desire?for sociality as it is known." If there is anything "politically indispensable" in homosexuality, it is its "politically unaccept able" opposition to community. Thus Homos paradoxically formulates what might be called "the antisocial thesis" in contemporary queer theory. Bersani's formulation and others like it have inspired a decade of ex plorations of queer unbelonging. Meanwhile, pace scholarship, gay rage for normalizing sociability?to judge by the gay-marriage boom alone?has in tensified. Given such divergent developments, I suggested to my colleagues on the MLA's Division Executive Committee for Gay Studies in Language and Literature that stocktaking of the antisocial thesis might be in order. An MLA convention panel in Washington could assess scholarship's gains from the thesis and where the thesis might be headed. It might consider whether arguments such as Homos 's justly connect suspicion of gay-rights politics with subversion of "sociality as it is known." It could ask if the antisocial thesis hedges its bets (consider Bersani s use of "potentially," "perhaps," and "as it is known" in the citations above). It might probe the adequacy of evidence for the anti social thesis that is drawn from aesthetic artifacts.