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
It is extrascriptural because the passage in Leviticus does not match the passage in Genesis 9 (uncovering vs. getting uncovered), and the passage in Genesis 9 contains enough references to physical actions (fatigue, drunkenness, sleep, covering while walking bakcwards, etc.) that militate against an euphemistically sexual reading and suggest literal slipping of a blanket or something like that.