« On Homosexual Marriage-Becker | Main | Should Greece Abandon the Euro? Posner »

05/13/2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

NEH

Adam, "Specify the Harm it causes to Society"? It offends the sense of propriety...

As for the Public health risks, you'll find your answer in the following question; "Should individuals who are infected with drug resistant Tuberculosis be allowed to roam freely among the general population"?
Remember, Society has an obligation to protect the general population.

And as for legal/social recognition policies, "Whatever"... I'm willing to abide by the decision of a National Referendum. Are you?


Hillel, Why "liberal" policy? It can just as well be a "reactionary" policy or even a "conservative" policy. Why don't we just call it a "policy" without bringing ideology into play and leave it at that...

tn requin

have not only enacted constitutional bans against gay marriage and civil unions, but have gone so far as to nullify private contracts between gay people that attempt to secure the legal benefits thereof.

toysmall

Digital Accessories Apple Accessories Samsung Accessories

Christopher Graves

Adam, thanks for your response to my post. In reply to your questions, first, lesbians also suffer a much higher rate of mental health problems as I noted above. Bisexual women and lesbians are three times more likely to be affected by anxiety disorders for example. Physical and verbal abuse are common in lesbian relationships. As for homosexual men being able to have sex in less dangerous ways, I suppose that they could, but apparently they do not given the statistics on their health problems. Heterosexuals can much more easily avoid these dangers by simply engaging in monogamous vaginal intercourse.

As for the social effects of legitimizing sex outside of traditional marriage, as I noted above, I think we can already see the malignant effects of the Sexual Revolution in subtle and not so subtle ways. The overall coarseness of life has increased as the traditional nuclear and extended family has been diminished along with its civilizing effects, especially on children. Whenever alternatives to the traditional family are not only allowed but promoted, then fewer people will move into the social structures afforded by the family.

I see sexuality as more fluid as did Freud than do many contemporary defenders of homosexuality. Statistics concerning the sex partners of homosexuals and those who do not choose to follow a conventional sexual code bear out Freud's characterization of human sexuality as being potentially "polymorphously perverse." We can see the dynamics of a sexually nihilistic "culture"(or lack thereof) in the animal kingdom in the case of the bonobos where females and children are especially at the mercy of the sexually aggressive. In human groupings, the more developed the civilization, up to the point it tends to decline, sexual restraint and strong families are the norm. Widespread sexual license tends to gradually lead to societal decline over a generation or two. British historian J.D. Unwin in his *Sex and Culture* documents this trend which is confirmed by Russian Pitirim Sorokin. Carl Wilson identifies the pattern of decline observed by Unwin and Sorokin in his *Our Dance Has Turned to Death.* Unwin lays the blame for societal decline in misdirected human energies while Wilson ties decline in with positivism and a loss of a spiritual vision.

I think all three writers are on to something, but Wilson's analysis is particularly insightful. I see Wilson's insights as similar to Edmund Burke's wariness of wholesale radical social change. When people lose their founding set of stories that evoke emotional resonance then the society crumbles. That everyday subjective experience that allows people to make sense of the world and their lives is essential for people to flourish within. Martin Heidegger also recognized the need for such a vision as he extolled the role of the poet. When that visceral subjective social experience is destroyed, the society will inevitably wither. This is especially true as people depart from the natural order that underlies the various cultures that develop over time for different people dwelling in their indigenous locations (or better, their senses of place). These considerations are why we should heed people's passions and intuitions. As Burke argued, there is a collected wisdom that accumulates in people's habits and traditions that also are consonant with their innate moral instincts. We see these intuitions surfacing on this particular issue in the implicit tests that I referred to above.

I do believe that the insights of Burke, Hume, and Hayek on the nature of knowledge and social cohesion are superior to those of Mill, Comte, or Carnap.

NEH

tn requin, Should the Law reflect the will of the people or should it dictate to the people the opinions of a select interest group? There can be problems with becoming a Nation purely of Laws and not of men or women...

Get the picture?

JB

Christopher Graves,

"First, contrary to Judge Posner's claim that homosexuality is natural, throughout history all cultures have found something amiss about homosexuality."

Irrelevant. Even if (contrary to fact) homosexuality is a choice, it doesn't follow that engaging in homosexual behaviour is wrong.

"All world religions today condemn homosexuality, not just the Abrahamic ones."

Is this supposed to be a premise in an argument? If (contrary, again, to fact) all world religions condemn homosexuality, then all world religions are wrong (as usual).

"Furthermore, when the vast majority of people, including left-liberals, are presented with implicit tests on their reaction to homosexuality, they are negative."

Irrelevant. Repugnance isn't an argument. Some people finding eating shellfish repugnant, but eating shellfish isn't wrong. Additionally, homosexuals find straight sex repugnant. Are we supposed to conclude from this that straight sex is wrong? Or do the numbers matter? If so, why?

"What these universal and enduring visceral reactions to homosexuality..."

Given that there are millions of homosexuals who don't have visceral reactions to homosexuality as well as millions of heterosexuals who don't have visceral reactions to homosexuality, it's something of a stretch to say that these visceral reactions are universal. And remember: 'It's icky' isn't an argument.

"There might be a host of reasons for this fall-off, but one might very well be the Sexual Revolution. And one reason to come to this conclusion is that people who practice more traditional sexual mores are more likely to be happy. For example, people who are married (I mean heterosexual marriage) and are faithful to their mates are much more likely to be happy."

Clue in here. If you were a member of a class of people who have always been marginalized, ostracized, or worse, you'd be depressed, too.

"Male homosexuals are much more likely to suffer from a variety of physical ailments due to the nature of the male homosexual sex act. HIV/AIDS, anal cancer, and a range of related diseases grouped under the term 'Gay Bowel Syndrome' are much more likely to occur to those practicing gay sex."

Oh, so it's not being gay that you're opposed to. It's anal sex.

"As for the claim that conservative Christians and Jews should have no voice in this matter, one cannot reasonably embrace the view that all perspectives should be considered in discussing public policy as Judge Posner does in his defense of democracy, and then disqualify millions who take a traditional view of sex and marriage who base their stand on religious belief."

Views based on ancient superstitions can be disregarded. If Christians and other religionists want to be part of the debate, then they'll have to stop spewing their religiously motivated drivel.

"It is also inconsistent to embrace a theory of natural rights, which the American political and legal system is based upon, and then flaunt what that same metaphysical/religious paradigm defines as unnatural."

Nothing inconsistent it about it at all. I can embrace a theory without embracing every aspect of it.

alternative investment

This whole issue remains utterly and completely befuddling. With the country coming out of the worst recession in 80 years, why are people more worried about peoples' families then their own?! I have no great interest one way or another on gay marriage.

TANSTAAFL

Agree with the most recent commenter above. In light of America's current economic woes, doesn't all this shrill advocacy of gay marriage seem way off base at best, or, more likely, the product of narcissism and base selfishness? How can anyone take seriously a sociopolitical agenda that is fixated on the groin?

Christopher Graves

JB, in response to your objections to implicit reactions to homosexuality and the universal negative reaction to homosexuality, consider the arguments for the relevance of such arguments by David Hume, Edmund Burke, and F.A. Hayek as I referred readers of this blog to in my previous post. I am not a positivist and find such reductive "reasoning" to be defective especially in the area of social sciences. My objection to positivism in social sciences centers on the complexity of social interactions and the inability of any one mind to comprehend the intricate web of social patterns that structure society and the economy. I also doubt that a value-free social science is possible.

Intuitions enable us to integrate very complex information and present conclusions to consciousness. When we find near universal agreement on intuitions across time, we should heed their insights. Emotions and moods are rational responses to a person's natural and social environment that act to coordinate social interaction as well as motivate us to action. On the role that emotions play consider the literature on the rationality of emotions such as the work done by Antonio Damasio, Allan Gibbard, and Ronald DeSousa. Intuitions and their attendant emotional reactions supply us with basic knowledge that can only be reasonably doubted when countered by overwhelmingly strong evidence to the contrary. I see no evidence anyone has presented here or elsewhere that homosexuality could be salutary for individuals or for society at large. In fact, I have presented evidence supporting most people's, perhaps including even your's, implicit reaction to homosexuality.

Belief in God is another example of basic knowledge. Consider the arguments along these lines by logician Alvin Plantinga. Religion, among other things, is an attempt to provide a coherent understanding of God to humans along with rituals that open people to God as religious institutions also bring believers and the greater community together in support of one another. As for religious people's rights, they have a right to free speech, a right to liberty of conscience, and a legal right to vote. Natural rights and our entire edifice of democratic institutions have a philosophical foundation in Christianity and Judaism.

JB

Christopher Graves,

"JB, in response to your objections to implicit reactions to homosexuality and the universal negative reaction to homosexuality..."

What universal negative reaction to homosexuality?

"I am not a positivist and find such reductive 'reasoning' to be defective especially in the area of social sciences. My objection to positivism in social sciences centers on the complexity of social interactions and the inability of any one mind to comprehend the intricate web of social patterns that structure society and the economy. I also doubt that a value-free social science is possible."

A lot of this strikes me as blather (no offence intended). What, exactly, do you mean by 'reductive reasoning'? Yes, value-free social science is probably impossible, but how is that relevant to the topic under discussion?

"Intuitions enable us to integrate very complex information and present conclusions to consciousness."

Who's denying the value of intuitions? I'm not.

"When we find near universal agreement on intuitions across time, we should heed their insights."

What 'near universal agreement on intuitions' are you referring to?

"On the role that emotions play consider the literature on the rationality of emotions such as the work done by Antonio Damasio, Allan Gibbard, and Ronald DeSousa."

I've read plenty of Gibbard and Damasio, probably more than anyone here. We get it, you like to read. Stop with the name-dropping.

"I see no evidence anyone has presented here or elsewhere that homosexuality could be salutary for individuals or for society at large."

What kind of evidence are you looking for? You simply ignored the point I made earlier, namely, that since gay and bisexual people have always been marginalized or ostracized or worse, it stands to reason that anxiety disorders, depression, etc. would be more prevalent among them. Imagine that you're a young person who's innately attracted to members of the same sex and that (as far as you know) none of your friends, relatives, etc. are. Imagine further that the religion you've been indoctrinated with condemns homosexuality. It's positively predictable that you'll suffer from depression.

"Belief in God is another example of basic knowledge. Consider the arguments along these lines by logician Alvin Plantinga."

I've published widely in the philosophy of religion, so I've read more Plantinga than anyone here. Plantinga can drone on all he wants about belief in God being properly basic. Right-thinking people won't buy it. But, again, I can't see the relevance of this.

"As for religious people's rights, they have a right to free speech, a right to liberty of conscience, and a legal right to vote."

Who's denying this? I'm certainly not. I said that if religionists want to be part of the conversation, then they'll have to stop spewing their religiously motivated drivel. That is, they'll have to stop saying things like 'God hates homosexuals' if they want to be taken seriously. (And let's face it, that's what the religious opposition to same-sex marriage boils down to.)

Christopher Graves

JB, in your latest reply, you question my claim that there is near universal negative reaction to homosexuality. I refer you to my first post on this matter on May 17th.

Here is your line quoted from above:

"Irrelevant. Repugnance isn't an argument. Some people finding eating shellfish repugnant, but eating shellfish isn't wrong. Additionally, homosexuals find straight sex repugnant. Are we supposed to conclude from this that straight sex is wrong? Or do the numbers matter? If so, why?

"What these universal and enduring visceral reactions to homosexuality..."

Given that there are millions of homosexuals who don't have visceral reactions to homosexuality as well as millions of heterosexuals who don't have visceral reactions to homosexuality, it's something of a stretch to say that these visceral reactions are universal. And remember: 'It's icky' isn't an argument. "

Let me spell this out again--the vast majority of people now and throughout history and throughout the world find homosexuality perverse, or at least lacking or inferior in some way. Consider again the research on this matter by sociologist Steven Goldberg. I also suggest considering the religious and cultural traditions from around the world. I also challenge the claim you made, which you present without evidence, that millions find homosexual sex to be acceptable. Again, you might take a look at my original post and find references to implicit testing that find most people, even people who explicitly say they consider homosexuality acceptable, to react very differently on an implicit test. Again, here is that reference: MC Steffens J Homosex. 2005;49(2):39-66. "Implicit and explicit attitudes towards lesbians and gay men." Here is yet another article along the same lines: Banse R, Seise J, Zerbes N. Z Exp Psychol. 2001;48(2):145-60. "Implicit attitudes towards homosexuality: reliability, validity, and controllability of the IAT." And, once again, you can take a similar test yourself at Harvard University's Implicit Test website.

People's intuitive and emotional reactions are what you seem to be challenging as relevant evidence against the moral, social, and legal approval of homosexuality, and so that is why I address the relevance and force of intuitive and emotional reactions. It seems that is rather obvious given the context of our exchange.

My brief discussion of the short-comings of social scientific evidence is in response to what I gather to be your call for "harder" evidence against the legitimacy or acceptability of homosexuality.

Even though I find the visceral level most relevant in assessing ethical and political positions, I presented evidence other than the intuitive/emotional reaction to homosexuality against attempts to normalize it. I do not see any evidence presented by you or anyone else in favor of experimenting with a basic institution of society, i.e. marriage. I am still waiting for your scientifically-based or any other explicitly propositional arguments that you might make in favor of the state forcibly mandating acceptance of homosexuality.

I might add that your claim that homosexual impulses are innate needs some evidence to support it. Larger identical twin studies that do not involve self-selection of participants refutes the claim that homosexuality is purely heritable. It is not really known what leads to homosexual desires, but the available evidence demonstrates they are not purely innate.

I would also mention here that the claim that the only reason that homosexuals suffer depression at higher rates than heterosexuals is due to discrimination flies in the face of the evidence that we have from the Netherlands and Denmark (both more publicly accepting of homosexuality) where homosexuals experience the same psychological disorders as in other nations. I might also point out that heterosexuals, especially women, who have sex outside of a monogamous relationship also suffer higher rates of depression. So, sexual misconduct of any sort takes its toll on people.

The argument against considering repugnance or disgust in discussions of public policy is a position taken by Martha Nussbaum. Here is an excerpt that I quote from an interview she gave to *Reason* Magazine:

"The prominent defenders of the appeal to disgust and shame in law have all been communitarians of one or another stripe ([Lord] Devlin, [Amitai] Etzioni, Kass), and this, I claim, is no accident. What their thought shares is the idea that society ought to have at its core a homogeneous group of people whose ways of living, of having sex, of looking and being, are defined as "normal." People who deviate from that norm may then be stigmatized, and penalized by law, even if their conduct causes no harm. That was the core of Lord Devlin's idea, and it is endorsed straightforwardly by Etzioni, and, in a rather different way, and in a narrower set of contexts, by Kass. My study of disgust and shame shows that these emotions threaten key values of a liberal society, especially equal respect for people and for their liberty. Disgust and shame are inherently hierarchical; they set up ranks and orders of human beings. They are also inherently connected with restrictions on liberty in areas of non-harmful conduct. For both of these reasons, I believe, anyone who cherishes the key democratic values of equality and liberty should be deeply suspicious of the appeal to those emotions in the context of law and public policy."

http://reason.com/archives/2004/07/15/discussing-disgust

Besides my appeal to natural law, I agree with Lord Devlin and the other conservatives she mentions here, along with the communitarians on this point, and disagree with her view of what liberty and equality demand. I also disagree with left-liberals such as Professor Nussbaum who seem to believe that the social organism can be continually and fundamentally tampered with by reformers without risking its death or decay.

I am glad that you are familiar with Plantinga's arguments for the existence of God. You seem to call a divinely inspired order that includes human sexuality into question in your previous post by calling religious beliefs "superstitions." So, that is the relevance of Plantinga's observation that belief in God is rational. As you may know, Plantinga offers other more explicit arguments for God's existence that are well-founded, but his argument for the "Sense of Divinity" follows along with our other discussion of basic knowledge.

If you agree that all Americans regardless of religious/metaphysical belief have the right to speak freely, publish freely, hold to beliefs established by their conscience, and vote accordingly, then we are in agreement on this point. I have the right to spew all of the drivel that I want if we take the First Amendment seriously, would you not agree? If people are wrong on this issue, then let's hash it out as we are doing here without the threat of censorship or disenfranchisement.

JB

Christopher (if I may),

"Let me spell this out again--the vast majority of people now and throughout history and throughout the world find homosexuality perverse, or at least lacking or inferior in some way."

So now it's the 'vast majority' of people? Well that stands to reason, since the vast majority of people aren't gay.

"People's intuitive and emotional reactions are what you seem to be challenging as relevant evidence against the moral, social, and legal approval of homosexuality, and so that is why I address the relevance and force of intuitive and emotional reactions."

I never denied the value of intuitions. What I do deny is that intuitions are sacrosanct. Your intuitions about same-sex marriage and homosexual sex don't survive reflective scrutiny.

"Consider again the research on this matter by sociologist Steven Goldberg. I also suggest considering the religious and cultural traditions from around the world."

It's altogether unclear what, on your view, this research is supposed to show. It's not enough simply to cite statistics indicating that people have negative reactions to homosexuality. Nothing much, if anything, follows from that. Compare: the vast majority of people in the United States in, say, the 1800s had negative reactions to interracial marriage (many still do). We can't draw any conclusions about the moral status of interracial marriage from that. The important question is whether people's negative reactions to homosexuality survive reflective scrutiny (which, of course, they don't).

"I also challenge the claim you made, which you present without evidence, that millions find homosexual sex to be acceptable."

Hmm...I'm going to assume you're pulling my leg here, since presumably you would agree that the millions of homosexuals around the world find homosexual sex acceptable. But is it just homosexual sex (and therefore same-sex marriage) that you find repugnant? If so, do you condemn straight people who have anal and oral sex?

"I do not see any evidence presented by you or anyone else in favor of experimenting with a basic institution of society, i.e. marriage."

I'll ask again: what kind of evidence are you looking for? There's plenty of evidence indicating that legalizing same-sex marriage has no negative social consequences whatever. Countries that have legalized it aren't suffering from social decay. (And please don't respond with the following hackneyed argument from verbal fiat: "Just in virtue of legalizing same-sex marriage, these countries are suffering from social decay.")

"I might add that your claim that homosexual impulses are innate needs some evidence to support it. Larger identical twin studies that do not involve self-selection of participants refutes the claim that homosexuality is purely heritable. It is not really known what leads to homosexual desires, but the available evidence demonstrates they are not purely innate."

Even if homosexuality is a choice (what does that even mean? that some people choose to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex?), it doesn't follow that engaging in homosexual behaviour is wrong.

"I would also mention here that the claim that the only reason that homosexuals suffer depression at higher rates than heterosexuals is due to discrimination flies in the face of the evidence..."

I didn't say it was the only reason. I suggested that it was the primary reason.

"I might also point out that heterosexuals, especially women, who have sex outside of a monogamous relationship also suffer higher rates of depression. So, sexual misconduct of any sort takes its toll on people."

I don't see the relevance of this. Homosexuals have loving, monogamous relationships, too.

"I have the right to spew all of the drivel that I want if we take the First Amendment seriously, would you not agree? If people are wrong on this issue, then let's hash it out as we are doing here without the threat of censorship or disenfranchisement."

Do you fear censorship? From whom? My point was one about being taken seriously in a debate.

nike air max 90


Danke für das Schreiben dieses. Ich fühle mich, als ob ich so viel mehr zu diesem Thema, als ich vorher nicht kannte. Dein Blog wirklich brachte einige Dinge ans Licht, dass ich nie über vor dem Lesen gedacht haben. Sie sollten dies auch weiterhin, wäre ich bin sicher, die meisten Menschen zustimmen youve geschenkt bekam.

maillot football


Danke dafür, dass die vertrauenswürdige Versuch, eine Erklärung dafür zu geben. Ich fühle mich sehr robuste es rund und möchten mehr informiert werden. Wenn es OK ist, wie Sie extra intensiv Weisheit zu erlangen, könnte man Gedanken das Hinzufügen zusätzlicher Beiträge ganz ähnlich wie diese mit weiteren Informationen? Es könnte sein, außerordentlich hilfreich und nützlich für mich und meine Kollegen.

Coach Poppy

I think it might be a mistake to focus on the debt held by students rather than total tuition costs. Some student hold lower debt than others because their parents made up the difference, but that causes its own set of problems for them.

Sweet Chuck

Obama permitted "gay marriage" legally It's getting controversial issue all over the world. Some gay phobia people including bigotted religion union and people go against his decision. Because It's not right but rather anti human crime.

Honestly I'm sort of gay phobia person, but I don't think I'm not against them. Rather, with some reason I can support his decision.

First of all, I think every people has their own right to be happy. They don't have to live like social frame which force them to live like others do, also there's no border line between normal and abnormal in terms of gay thing.

Second, They are no harm to others. People traditionally think that AIDS is casusd by sexual behavior between gays, but It's proved to be wrong. Also They don't touch any guys who is straight, heterosexual. So you don't have to worry about that.

Third, There also exists stongpoint.
People think Children rasised by gays can't live normally, but ironically, a child adopted by gay couple feel more comfortable, stable than straight couple. Study says they are likely to be less violent, more understanding, because their parents don't force them to obey. In other words, their chidren are not different from others.

The current trend has admitted variety including gay thing.
Famous stars also are not ashamed of coming out.
Mass media deals with homosexual movie, drama, songs such as Born this way by lady gaga.

Therefore, I think gay marriage is natural right. Rather, I applaud their courage.

noah

I am so tired of of seeing the fight for homosexual rights being compared to racial discrimination. Homosexuality is a life choice, being of a certain ethnic group is not. Homosexuals are born with an impulse nothing more. In much the same way a person is born with the tendency to be violent. This person does not have to act on his impulses. He can control them. The homosexual can control his/her impulses they CHOOSE not to. Why should they chose not to you may ask ? Because it is wrong plain and simple. Now I'm a Christian, a lot of people claim to be but do not know anything God has told them. If you just read your Bible you would know that that homosexuality is in fact prohibited by God. Some of you say nowhere in the bible does it say that, well look at this verse Leviticus 18:1-30 22 “‘And you must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing". Does it get any clearer than that? I think not

ezra abrams

President Obama's support....
I understand the POTUS said that it should be left to the states.

Tell me, what would the public reaction be if M Romney announced that he, personally, was opposed to miscegenation or yellow star laws, but that he felt it should be left to the states....(of course, this is the position of R Paul).

antigaymarriage laws are exactly like miscegenation laws, an attempt by some part of the populace to enforce its own narrow views on someone else

film izle

i think, we wont to think this subjects anymore.

Christopher Graves

Belatedly... I just found these two informative videos that support the line of argument that I advanced on the intuitive grounds of moral judgement and of religious belief when this blog post was current. Here they are if anyone stumbles on this discussion now that it has hit the back-burner:

The first is a brief video by Yale psychologist Paul Bloom on the role of disgust, and more broadly, emotion in how people make moral decisions.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/17928

The second video is a discussion by Andrew Newberg of recent findings in neuroscience on how the human brain is wired for religious experience.

http://www.bigthink.com/andrewnewberg

Bottes Timberland

Nike has received your preconception of one's big organization getting into professional skateboard so that you can create a number of methods. My wife and i has become nervous in the beginning relating to Nike skateboard boots and shoes, still I favor the best way they?¡¥ve got gone over it. As opposed to producing low-cost rubbish professional skate boarding footwear and also needing to undercut the specific skateboard shoe industry, Nike has gotten the actual substantial path. nike shox tl3 whitened violet have their private special structure, though a few of their particular shoes and boots look like any kind of collection regarding crayons still left more than a range burner, many look quite fantastic. And also they all are well-built. No matter which this acknowledge Nike obtaining inside skate marketplace, it is really excellent which in truth obtained enough time to produce professional skateboarding boots and shoes which usually work well.
http://www.macyscn.com/views/D&G-purse-009-8333.html
http://www.macyscn.com/views/D&G-purse-006-8330.html
http://www.macyscn.com/views/D&G-purse-005-8329.html

soccer shoes

I love your blog very much, more more info, I will concern it again!

Thomas

Hey,
Thanks! Great post you have written on "Homosexual Marriage—Posner". Really I can say that your post is very informative, I'll come across your blog again when you will update it with new.
Thomas
http://www.jrlaw.org/

INA Bearings

Good post, Wonderful !

Blog links:http://www.hsstbearing.com

Cam Followers Bearings

KR 62 PPA Cam Followers Bearing 62*24*80
KR 52 PPA Cam Followers Bearing 52*20*66
KR 47 PPA Cam Followers Bearing 47*20*66
KR 40 B Cam Followers Bearing 40*18*58
KR 35 B Cam Followers Bearing 35*16*52
KR 32 B Cam Followers Bearing 32*12*40*14
KR 30 B Cam Followers Bearing 30*12*40*14
KR26B Cam Followers Bearing 26*10*36*12
KR22B Cam Followers Bearing 22*10*36*12
KR19 Cam Followers Bearing 18*8*32*11
KR16 Cam Followers Bearing 16*6*28*11

The comments to this entry are closed.

Become a Fan

May 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31