From what I've seen, you generally need a 12-24 month lease to rent a house. I can sell my house whenever I want (or leave and rent it out to someone else), but if I'm stuck in a 24 month lease I'm stuck for the next 2 years.
I don't think I've ever been aware of a situation where the cost of breaking a lease was actually, in practice, more significant than the costs in time and money associated with selling real estate. Obviously if your property has gained in value in the meantime you may still come out ahead when it's all done, but on the flipside you may also lose a lot of money.
The costs of breaking a lease are much more predictable.
In most cases you can only sell your house if someone is willing to buy it. Although renting it out is an option but you'll still be tied to, and responsible for, the property.
Personally, I don't see the big deal; there are pros and cons both ways.
Whenever you want, huh? Everyone thought the same thing in 2007.
Are people honestly trying to argue that owning a home leaves you more mobile than renting? Preposterous.
When you need to get out of a rental lease (of which I've never seen go beyond 12 months, but I'm sure they do), the landlord is obligated to make every effort to mitigate his losses and replace you as a tenant. You aren't "stuck".