One way to analyze this is to start with the MA(1) expression $y_t = e_t - \theta e_{t-1}$, then write out the expressions for $(y_1 + y_2)$ and $(y_3 + y_4)$ in terms of the $e_t$. You get:
$y_1 + y_2 = e_2 + (1-\theta)e_1 - \theta e_0$
$y_3 + y_4 = e_4 + (1-\theta)e_3 - \theta e_2$
Note that the only common term between the two expressions is $e_2$; the first expression has $e_1$ and $e_0$, which don't appear in the second, and the second has $e_4$ and $e_3$, which don't appear in the first. If you find the correlation explicitly, you get:
$\rho_{12,34} = -\theta / (1 + \theta^2 + (1-\theta)^2)$
For just $y_1$ and $y_2$, we have $y_1 = e_1 - \theta e_0$ and $y_2 = e_2 - \theta e_1$. Here we have $e_1$ in both, but fewer other terms. The correlation here is
$\rho_{12} = -\theta / (1+\theta^2)$.
Comparing the denominators of the two expressions for the correlation, you can see the first has the extra (non-negative) term $(1-\theta)^2$ in it. Since the numerators are the same, for all $\theta \ne 0 \space \text{or}\space 1$, the correlation between $y_t+y_{t+1}$ and $y_{t+2}+y_{t+3}$ will be closer to 0 than the correlation between $y_t$ and $y_{t+1}$.
As you aggregate more and more, this effect will get larger; the only common term is $e_{t+\tau}$, where you are aggregating $y_t \dots y_{t+\tau}$ and $y_{t+\tau+1} \dots y_{t+2\tau}$, but the variability of the aggregates increases as the number of terms making up the aggregation increases, so the correlation decreases.