Agreed, and if the reader had read Luke 1, there would be no confusion that the use of parents of Jesus in Luke 2 refers to the legal notion, not familial. It appear to me you are looking for controversies that are not there.
Luke 2:48-49 (KJB) (my emphasis in bold)
And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
Luke 2:48-49 (ASV) (my emphasis in bold)
And when they saw him, they were astonished; and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I sought thee sorrowing.And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? knew ye not that I must be in my Father’s house?
Clearly both show that Jesus is the Son of God.
It is not necessarily incorrect to say that Joseph and Mary were the parents of the Lord (Luke 2:41). However, it is wrong when God desires to point out that Joseph’s relationship to the Lord differs from Mary’s relationship to Him.
Mary was in error when she stated “thy father and I sought thee . . .” (Luke 2:49) - quite not the infallible woman that a certain Roman church teaches.
The 12-year old Jesus immediately corrects her (not the first time): “I must be in my Father’s house” - clearly Joseph is NOT Jesus’ father in the sense that Mary is His mother.
I do not have to hunt very hard for controversies that Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort gladly provided.
It would appear that the ‘virgin birth’ is not very high on your list for fundamentals of the faith.