I'm currently TAing for a multivariable calculus course. When I think of a line, I think of the span of a single vector, potentially shifted away from the origin. In this way, the most natural representation of a line (to me) is its vector form:
$$P + tv$$
where I first move to a point $P$ on my line, and then move in the direction of some vector $v$. And if I'm in $\mathbb{R}^3$ where $P = \langle x_0,y_0,z_0\rangle$ and $v = \langle v_1, v_2,v_3\rangle$, I can understand writing the line in parametric form:
$$\begin{cases}x = x_0 + tv_1 \\ y = y_0 + tv_2 \\ z = z_0 + tv_3\end{cases}$$
because we're just being explicit about components. However, if each $v_i$ is nonzero, there's the symmetric equation of a line
$$\frac{x-x_0}{v_1} = \frac{y-y_0}{v_2} = \frac{z-z_0}{v_3}.$$
Why would I (or my students) ever use this format to describe a line? I see geometry in the vector equation, but I see no geometry in the symmetric equation. Why not just use vector equations or parametric equations?
Take for example the curve $\mathbf{r}(t) = (1-\tan^2t,3+4\tan^2t,-2+7\sec^2t)$ Many students might not know what a curve with crazy trig functions might look like, but this still represents a line segment. What the symmetric form teaches is that the exact parametric equation describing how fast one component goes is unimportant. What determines the shape is the $\textbf{relationship}$ between the variables, i.e. how fast one component is going relative to the other. In other words, what makes a line is not the $t\mathbf{v}$, it's the fact that each variable has a linear relationship with each of the others.