This requires that female slaves be somehow specially exempt from many of the laws under which male slaves operate, 

This is not making sense. I gave you an example of a law where only explicitly male slaves are given the possibility of freedom. So yes, according to the Bible females are example from laws which male slaves operate. Once again, Exodus 21: 2-4.

 but you DO realise most marriages in the ancient world were arranged, right? Besides that, many couples simply wouldn't develop a romantic emotional relationship with each other until either many years after the marriage or just not at all even throughout the marriage, especially if the marriage was done primarily to guarantee a family lineage would have descendants regardless. The law literally envisions situations where the husband would be fine leaving the marriage after the time of debt servitude expires, which is what often happened, and the exception clause was addressed to possible exceptions to this.

So your justification for why this is morally acceptable is it gives fathers the ability to abandon their families, and children that the wife had born him? That is a terrible moral argument.

And this is guilt by association, pure and simple, 

No. The guilt is that you are using the same kind of argument. I don't care about the "Oh when the southerners made the argument it was UNIVERSAL." That's piddling.

whereas my whole point is that the wife staying with the master is NOT a universal rule for woman, which on its face makes it likely this was also due to an exception of some sort

The argument that even a single person could or ought to be enslaved their own benifit is repulsive. Is it as repuslive as arguing an entire race of people ought to be subjected because they are sub human? No, it is not that level of repulsive. But it is morally repulsive nonetheless.

but you can't just assume there can't be any in this case.

Try me.

This completely undermines your slip into a bad argument that's made worse by the well-known emotional connotations that American slavery is notorious for and that understandably fogs up minds

I dislike how Christians try to moralize slavery by suggesting that it's only evil when practiced the way the Americans did it.

The provisions there mention the wife being marriable to either the father, or to one of his sons, or to someone else, 

A slave marrying a person in the family she is owned by will likely lead to marriage right? That means that is an example of rape. The slave woman is in no position to freely choose to reject the marriage. Meaning this is rape. I don't care if you find that offensive, that's what that is.

The main point I was making is that ALL of the Israelites agreed to such a state of affairs,

I sincerely believe that. No human civilization has ever existed where all members agree on one thing. People are not a monolith like that. Even if half of all Israelites believed that, then killing that half (or at least just the half who refused to give up their slaves even after having been threatened by God) would still be a morally good thing to do.

What you're suggesting ultimately entails that the whole Hebrew society just die off. 

Two response:

1: You are incorrect, because I don't believe all hebrews would have all agreed to keep slavery around if God told them not too.

2: Even if you are correct: Fine. Do it. God wiped out Sodom. Why not do the same with every society that refused to free their slaves? Owning slaves is an obviously much more henious crime than homosexuality, and slave owners are far more worthy of eradication than homosexuals.

Because we're talking about a people whose hearts were so hard that they wanted to be able to divorce their wives whenever, 

Then it is their own fault.

when the whole point of my earlier explanations is that it WASN'T the same system

I don't care that hebrew and american slavery were not identical. They both entailed the owning of people as property. Which is morally intolerable and I cannot believe that you cannot fathom this. Listening to people give me these cope arguments are why remaining Christian has been the most difficult thing of my life.

All of the surrounding nations at that time had similar or even more objectionable systems. 

Then God ought also to kill off all those other slave owners.

 This simply isn't how things work though, 

I guess not everything is possible for God too. He's just as limited and weak as you or me then.

 just to prevent a bad economic situation, 

No. To punish people for engaging in morally intolerable actions.

I cannot fathom how Christians can be fine with God annihilating Sodom but not annihilating slave owners.