[rayiner]

There is nothing unethical about it. Marriage was an economic arrangement long before it was a romantic one. And it still serves that function: it diversifies peoples' income sources, changes their risk profile (as the article points out), allows amortizing many fixed expenses, etc.

For most of history, society has told young men to get married so they can form households. There was a good reason for that (aside from propagation of the species): it's very difficult for a single man to, for example, run a farm by himself.

[jiggliemon]

Why does anyone need to be married to do any of the above?

[rayiner]

The article is talking about "married" as the opposite of "single." Whether you're legally married, or "functionally" married is somewhat besides the point. (Although, as a pre-packaged set of rules governing economic partnerships between two people, marriage still has a lot to offer. E.g. if you keep a 9-5 to pay for health insurance while your spouse throws herself at a startup; you'd be daft not to have some sort of arrangement in place to share in the upside if she is successful.)