Not really. Spider-Man's appeal is gradually seeing him develop and change through the times and authors. When he's derailed heavily enough and that trust of perpetual forward momentum is shattered, that facet of the character can never be recovered.
Let's say you wake up tomorrow and Marvel announces a shakeup. ASM is reverting to its mid 00s status quo. While you might like this change, it doesn't undo the decade of the curtain being pulled back while the man behind the screen is exposed. It doesn't matter that Peter is married again: you know Marvel was willing to completely destroy the integrity of the character to market him as single. There's no going back. Instead your draw is "aside from a decade, Peter's story was constantly progressing." You can't trust the book any more. Any strain in his relationship will look like another attempt to push a marketing-based status quo and every story that doesn't keep his life moving forward will look like stalling.
Things that "ruin" characters on a fundamental level only have four paths of continued, quality publication. They ignore the previous event, creating that cognitive gap and distrust mentioned before; they forge a new path using these developments, changing the inherent appeal of the character; they refresh comtinuity, which is essentially a bandaid so you can keep making unfinished, broken stories forever; they cast comtinuity aside and make their own apocrypha. You'll notice most of the better cape comics are essentially Superhero Apocrypha for this reason.
The conscious narrative heading towards a conclusion is regularly molested by these companies and their need to make characters as marketable and long lasting as possible. So yeah, you can absolutely "ruin" a character, but most superhero fiction is written with the expectation that this will happen. It only matters for characters like Spider-Man, who's appeal was largely in having a functional ongoing narrative, shoddy as it was.