Why is owning a house still treated as a mandatory requirement for marriage?

I'm in my late 20s, doing well financially, and have built a portfolio across equities, mutual funds, gold, and debt. Yet my parents constantly ask me when I'm going to buy a house, as if it's the next mandatory milestone in life.

The interesting part is that I consciously chose not to buy real estate.

• My career involves changing companies every few years for better growth.
• I may not even settle in the same city or country long term.
• I've seen firsthand how much effort goes into managing rental properties. My father owns one, and the maintenance, taxes, tenant issues, and low rental yields don't look attractive to me.
• Real estate is illiquid. Buying is easy; selling is not.
• I prefer investments that I can manage from anywhere in the world.

What puzzles me is that many families seem to value visible assets more than overall financial health.

A ₹2 crore flat is easy to see and show relatives. A ₹2 crore investment portfolio quietly compounding in the background isn't visible, so it doesn't carry the same social status.

Sometimes it feels less about financial security and more about social signalling:

"My daughter lives in a flat in Chennai."

"My son-in-law owns land near ECR."

"They have a farmhouse."

I don't have anything against real estate. If someone genuinely wants a house for lifestyle reasons, that's perfectly reasonable.

What I struggle with is the assumption that not owning property automatically makes someone less financially responsible or less suitable for marriage.

Personally, I'd rather find a partner whose values align with mine than make a multi-crore purchase just to satisfy social expectations.

Am I missing something here, or do others feel that visible assets are often given disproportionate importance in the marriage market?