There is no “Ham uncovered his father’s nakedness” anywhere. The episode in Gen 9 is told not as a metaphore but as a common occurence to anyone who has ever slept in a tired state (drunk or not): the clothes get uncovered. Ham is guilty of disrespect, while Sem and Japheth show respect. If, as you maintain, Ham did something other than look and tell others, then what sense does it make to describe the process of covering Noah in such physical detail?
First, yours is a speculation, — which I do not necessary fight or find “difficult to accept”, merely point out its extrascriptural nature. Second, the argument is about a putative sin of Noah, and not Ham. I agree on the main point, that Ham committed a sin, and earned himself a curse. Whether that sin was exactly as the Scripture described, gawking at his father as he slept, or there was something sexual the scripture chose not to explain, is of little concern to me.
I don't understand why you say it is "extrascriptural" when I gave you the scripture. I understand that the argument was about the supposed sin of Noah but as pointed out - it was not Noah that sinned. He was drunk, not a good thing, but not a sin. The sin lay in what his son did.
Leviticus 18:7-8 The nakedness of thy father and the nakedness of thy mother thou dost not uncover, she [is] thy mother; thou dost not uncover her nakednes. The nakedness of the wife of thy father thou dost not uncover; it [is] the nakedness of thy father.
God didn't curse Noah for a sin but Noah cursed the result of his son's sin, Canaan. Noah cursed the act and the product of the act. One can't think he did that because his son saw his naked, drunken body. Ham is guilty of much more than disrespect.
As you say, it may be of no concern to you I just thought you might want to know the true meaning of the scripture.
......Ping