No need exists, it is argued, for a new psychoanalytic theory of homosexuality. Certainly psychoanalysis should not be expected to generate such a theory using its own methodology alone. The preoccupation with producing such a theory avoids more important questions about psychoanalytic theory building raised by an examination of the long relationship between psychoanalysis and homosexuality. These questions concern the problems related to using psychoanalytic methodology (I) to construct categories (including the categories normal and abnormal), (2) to construct causal theory (the problems include the limitations of psychoanalytic developmental theory and a long-standing confusion between psychoanalytic developmental theory, psychoanalytic genetic reconstruction, and psychodynamics), and (3) to identify “bedrock.” Finally, the question is addressed of what might be needed that is new in the psychoanalytic approach to homosexuality.