The Sin of Noah?

[Cal]

Here's the story as I see it.

• Noah got drunk and was seen lying in his tent naked.
• Two of his sons attempted to cover this up.
• Another son, Ham, exposed it.
• In response, Noah cursed Canaan, the son of Ham.

Now, there are lots of ways of interpreting this:

• Whether Noah was wrong or not was irrelevant because Ham had no business exposing him.
• The two covering sons were right and Ham was wrong.
• Noah was wrong but Ham was more wrong.
• Ham was wrong but Noah was more wrong.
• Noah appreciated the two covering sons, because they hid his embarrassing behavior. He was mad a Ham because he exposed it. But this does not imply that the two were right and Ham was wrong, but rather that Noah reacting in his own embarrassed self-interest.
• Noah's curse was righteous.
• Noah's curse was not righteous.
• Noah's curse influenced Canaan to become a rebel.
• Noah's curse and the history that followed proves God backed Noah.
• Noah's curse and the history that followed proves the power of parental words.
• The story is about deputy authority.
• The story is about how no matter how great you become, you can still stumble.
• The story is about the power of words, for influencing good and evil.
• The story is about how God is okay with us cursing the son of someone who offends us, provided we are important holy persons like Noah.

All these ideas and more are in play.

Now, why do many people think Noah was in the right here, or that we should look at it that way. Isn't it because he is supposed to be the man of God, and so we give him the benefit of the doubt? And isn't it because the curse seemed to come true? But the Bible never tells us to take this approach. It simply tells the story. It's up to us to interpret it. Other men of God have failed late in life. Solomon for one. Do we believe that because that Solomon was so blessed that God approved of his having hundreds of wives and concubines? If we don't believe that why do we need to paint Noah in the right here?

For example, this is from "Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible":

Noah might be informed how his little son, or rather grandson Canaan, had been in his tent, and seeing him in the posture he was, went very merrily, and told his father Ham of it, who made a jest of it also;

Do you see how this type of interpretation is assuming that Ham and Canaan were wrong, and attempting to justify Noah's reaction? I've read many interpretations like this. Everyone it seems, feels the need to justify Noah's behavior and find reason to fault Ham and Canaan, even to the point of inventing scenarios.

Now, my question is, why the need to interpret it in this way? I might be making some assumptions with my interpretation, but these more prominent interpretations certainly are. Why are they better?