In Judism, a maidservant (or a manservant) had pretty much the same status as a hired worker. Calling them a slave is decpetiveExodus:
21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
You get to "buy" these "hired" workers. They have to serve you for six years. You have to let them go after seven years -- unless they want to stay with the wife you've bought for them, in which case they have to serve you for the rest of their lives.
Doesn't seem to be an option where female "hired hands" ever get to leave.
Oh, but none of that is slavery, no. Couldn't be. Nope.
Slavery was part of Isrealite culture due to thier captivity in Egypt. The Mosaic law regulated that part of the secular culture, protecting the servants from a lot of abuse.
Most of the slaves were in temporary indentured servitude to pay off debts they otherwise could not, and they were treated far more fairly than in other cultures. In Judism, slaves were not property that the master had unlimited power over, and if a slave was treated harshly they would be set free. Their status in law and in society was akin to that of a hired worker and the system was NOTHING like Greek, Roman or American slavery was. Simply calling it slavery creates a distored and incorrect view of what it realy was like.
For some even it was a career path, a way of ensuring a secure future for themselves by serving a wealthy and kind master. The prodigal son sought to become a servant of his father to find relief from his misfortunes for example.
Fathers from poor households would sell their daughters to be a maidserveant of a wealthy man that they trusted in part because the arrangement would benifit the daughter, give her a boost up the social ladder and perhaps lead to a marriage to the master or one of his sons.
"You have to let them go after seven years -- unless they want to stay with the wife you've bought for them, in which case they have to serve you for the rest of their lives. Doesn't seem to be an option where female "hired hands" ever get to leave."
Wrong. You either didn't read or didn't understand the next few verses. If the maidservent marries the master or one of his sons then there are additional rules to comply with, but outside of that she is allowed to "go out free without money" same as the men.
Also on every jubilee year, ALL slaves are released and the master had the option of releasing any slave at will, anytime. Servants could not be forced to marry against their will and they would know the rules too.
"Oh, but none of that is slavery, no. Couldn't be. Nope. "
I didn't say it wasn't slavery, I said it wasn't anything like the slavery practiced by the USA. That is a fact.
If you don't consider Biblical verses sufficient justification for banning gay marriage, I would agree with you. That is not how such decisions should be made by government. But you can make that point without fostering a distorted view of how things were in Biblical times, that's all.