Before this turns into another one of my 'big moral issue'-posts , I need to remind everybody that the main reason marriage remains is 'that it's such a good deal' (the woman gets a man to "be her daddy (who provides for her sustanence & comfort)"; the man gets ... well, we'll call it 'the satisfaction of a life-purpose' ... and someone to "keep The House" and to "help raise the kids"). This leads to the heart of the question---"Is 'woman' still considered to be 'bone of man's bones & flesh of his flesh'? If so (even if that's only the title a wife takes, and then only of 'her specific husband's bones & flesh'), then how are people considered to be 'more than load-moving animals'?"
I opinion most people are not aware that there are two primary forms of slavery: forced and voluntary. Most people live in a form or way of voluntary slavery, and yes the practice of forced slavery still occurs daily. More over, the idea of "voluntary" slavery can be applied towards anything, because one can be a slave to their passions or creativity - it's use is ambiguous unlike forced slavery. Forced slavery never became unchristian, it simply fell out of ethical and economical favor in the USA and else where, due to various reasons from the rise of papered currency use and more trading transitioned more free people to be voluntary slaves who worked for a wage, and the fact that slavery was more costly overall than hiring willing workers. Regarding your question about most female humans being slaves to male humans, this is largely a fallacy and misunderstanding, truly the difference is in positional responsibility and liability a female humans have to her family and society, which is not slavery but a duty and obligation - male humans also have their own family and social position to uphold. A citizen or person, is a man or woman who assume [uptake or to take up] such a role as a obligation and duty to the society or entity he/she ascribed to be live under, which is pretty much a voluntary slave e.g. even though they were technically forced slaves, the Gladiators of Rome were held in status above Roman citizens. Lastly, the word "people" can be implied towards any group of entities. For example, the dwarf people are small in stature to the human people. More over, a Slave master is in fact a slave to his/her slave, think deep about this one and you'll understand.
Marriage is a choice. No one is forced to get married. Those who get into into it believe they are doing it for love. They literally want to be joined. To be one. In oneness there's no master, no slave. For women to be considered slaves they must fully submit to the authority of their men/husbands. They don't. Women have rights. If they find no satisfaction in a union they can 'dissolve' it any time they please.
What you describe as a good deal just looks like a sexist situation to me. I think marriage is about more than that -- to be a better tax category and to have any kind of rights should something happen to your spouse. Otherwise, sometimes you get kicked out of the hospital room because "you're not family". Why would marriage not have remained when so many people still dream of getting married "traditionally" and will do it? Nobody dreams of being a slave. And probably few people dream of owning some, I hope.
