The IPv4 perspective is a red herring. NATting was indeed necessitated by IP address scarcity, but a domestic installation that does NAT comes with ancillary benefits, like giving you, the home user, a single place to control access to your network.
In IPv6 it's nice that you have an address space that's not only big enough to accommodate every device, but large enough to even burn through addresses and treat them as disposable, but once IPv6 becomes widespread there will need to be some rethinking as to how to manage firewall rules between your own devices, how to segregate your portion of the network from the spurious (and sometimes malicious) traffic of everywhere else.
Not to mention that you really need to focus on securing the endpoint anyway because an increasing number of your devices are mobile and aren't "home" an increasing amount of time anyway. The period of central router/gateway/NAT management made the most sense was when the majority of your home were desktops fixed in their locations in the same rooms. In a world of a majority of laptops and hand computers, worrying about the strength of your home router/gateway/NAT is increasingly silly, as those devices may spend as much time or more at your work, or the coffee shop down the street, as they do at "home".
In IPv6 it's nice that you have an address space that's not only big enough to accommodate every device, but large enough to even burn through addresses and treat them as disposable, but once IPv6 becomes widespread there will need to be some rethinking as to how to manage firewall rules between your own devices, how to segregate your portion of the network from the spurious (and sometimes malicious) traffic of everywhere else.